4 ms·

Not as useful as it could be since it has special syntax that isn't supported in JSON where not having 64-bit ints is one of the bigger issues. https://webappl

• Cthulhu_ 9y ago
  Probably best to represent long numbers as strings in json; json doesn't support a lot of JS's features.
• daxterspeed 9y ago
  While there's a few gotchas, rolling your own JSON parser isn't necessarily a ton of work. Or perhaps a proposal could be written to give numbers emitted by JSON.parse a "raw" property, so they could be decoded using BigInt?
  • elmigranto 9y ago
    No need for custom parser. Right now, you can use custom format with reviver and serializer functions (2nd arg to serialize / parse). Say, have them serialize as string `^bigint[\d]+$` and revive appropriately.
    • daurnimator 9y ago
      But the point is to support large numbers with the traditional syntax. e.g. so that {"foo": 1234567890123456789012345678901234567890} doesn't lose precision.
      • elmigranto 9y ago
        Given that `int + bigint` throws in JS, this exact thing will never happen imo, otherwise, you can't differentiate between types. Maybe something like `{"x": 10n}`, but at that point, might as well do reviver, especially if you already agreed on a format and use some to parse out class instances vs plain objects.