RetroSearch Browse

Sat Apr 16 23:28:20 CEST 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110782.html

Am 16.04.2011 21:13, schrieb Vinay Sajip:
> Martin v. Löwis <martin <at> v.loewis.de> writes:
> 
>> Does it actually need improvement?
> 
> I can't actually say, but I assume it keeps changing for the better - albeit
> slowly. I wasn't thinking of specific improvements, just the idea of continuous
> improvement in general...

Hmm. I cannot believe in the notion of "continuous improvement"; I'd
guess that it is rather "continuous change".

I can see three possible areas of improvment:
1. Bugs: if there are any, they should clearly be fixed. However, JSON
   is a simple format, so the implementation should be able to converge
   to something fairly correct quickly.
2. Performance: there is always room for performance improvements.
   However, I strongly recommend to not bother unless a severe
   bottleneck can be demonstrated.
3. API changes: people apparently want JSON to be more flexible wrt.
   Python types that are not directly supported in JSON. I'd rather take
   a conservative approach here, involving a lot of people before adding
   an API feature or even an incompatibility.

Regards,
Martin

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110782.html below:

[Python-Dev] Status of json (simplejson) in cpython