RFC: std.json sucessor

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 22 August 2014 at 17:45:03 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Am 22.08.2014 19:27, schrieb "Marc Schütz" <schuetzm at gmx.net>":
>> On Friday, 22 August 2014 at 16:56:26 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>>> Am 22.08.2014 18:31, schrieb Christian Manning:
>>>> It would be nice to have integers treated separately to 
>>>> doubles. I know
>>>> it makes the number parsing simpler to just treat everything 
>>>> as double,
>>>> but still, it could be annoying when you expect an integer 
>>>> type.
>>>
>>> That's how I've done it for vibe.data.json, too. For the new
>>> implementation, I've just used the number parsing routine from
>>> Andrei's std.jgrandson module. Does anybody have reservations 
>>> about
>>> representing integers as "long" instead?
>>
>> It should automatically fall back to double on overflow. Maybe 
>> even use
>> BigInt if applicable?
>
> I guess BigInt + exponent would be the only lossless way to 
> represent any JSON number. That could then be converted to any 
> desired smaller type as required.
>
> But checking for overflow during number parsing would 
> definitely have an impact on parsing speed, as well as using a 
> BigInt of course, so the question is how we want set up the 
> trade off here (or if there is another way that is 
> overhead-free).

As the functions will be templatized anyway, it should include a 
flags parameter. These and possible future extensions can then be 
selected by the user.