3 ms·
That sounds like a "no true scotsman" argument. If comments were added to the spec then normal tools would support them just fine. Besides, JSON has already b
by bronson 13y ago
That sounds like a "no true scotsman" argument. If comments were added to the spec then normal tools would support them just fine.
Besides, JSON has already become a common format for config files. Config files that don't allow comments are truly a step backward.
- mercurial 13y ago> That sounds like a "no true scotsman" argument. I don't see how this is a "no true scotsman". Maybe a non-true "no true scotsman"? > If comments were added to the spec then normal tools would support them just fine. Plain comments, sure. Comments with custom annotations in them, not so much. > Besides, JSON has already become a common format for config files. Config files that don't allow comments are truly a step backward. Maybe this wasn't such a good idea in the first place?
- MichaelGG 13y agoHow not? Comments with annotations would be ignored, just like a special annotation key. Either way, you'd end up with a parsed document that isn't what the original creator intended.