RetroSearch Browse

Sat Apr 16 23:55:51 CEST 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110785.html

Martin v. Löwis <martin <at> v.loewis.de> writes:

> 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.

I agree with all these points, though I was only thinking of Nos. 1 and 2. Over
a longer timeframe, improvements may also come with changes in the spec
(unlikely in the short and medium term, but you never know in the long term).

Regards,

Vinay Sajip

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110785.html below:

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