3 ms·
> _foo_bar=Something&baz=Else > could parse as either of: > {foo:{bar:"Something",baz:"Else"}} > {foo:{bar:"Something"}, baz:"Else"} I don't think thi
by vaporstun 15y ago
> _foo_bar=Something&baz=Else
> could parse as either of:
> {foo:{bar:"Something",baz:"Else"}}
> {foo:{bar:"Something"}, baz:"Else"}
I don't think this is right, or at least, it shouldn't be right. I think _foo_bar=Something&baz=Else should only parse as {foo:{bar:"Something"}, baz:"Else"}.
{foo:{bar:"Something",baz:"Else"}} should be _foo_bar=Something&_foo_baz=Else
It should be possible for the writer of the article to fix this without major changes.
- Robin_Message 15y ago> {foo:{bar:"Something",baz:"Else"}} should be _foo_bar=Something&_foo_baz=Else This makes sense, but is not what I or the author was suggesting. Note that it is somewhat repetitive (foo appears twice). In contrast the new suggestion simply has an possible ; to disambiguate these possibilities.