← Back to context Comment by Xenoamorphous 3 days ago That would be solved if JSON had a native date type in ISO format. 6 comments Xenoamorphous Reply SJC_Hacker 3 days ago JSON doesn’t really have data types beyond very simple ones motorest 2 days ago > JSON doesn’t really have data types beyond very simple onesWhat do you think primitive types are supposed to be? SJC_Hacker 1 day ago I guess my point was something like an ISO 8601 date would be beyond the scope of a built in data type given JSONs philosophy of a minimal spec. It’s up to the end user to define types like that. Jenk 2 days ago The below type definition (TS) fits the ECMA schema for JSON: type JSON = string | number | boolean | null | JSON[] | {[name: string]: JSON} 2 replies →
SJC_Hacker 3 days ago JSON doesn’t really have data types beyond very simple ones motorest 2 days ago > JSON doesn’t really have data types beyond very simple onesWhat do you think primitive types are supposed to be? SJC_Hacker 1 day ago I guess my point was something like an ISO 8601 date would be beyond the scope of a built in data type given JSONs philosophy of a minimal spec. It’s up to the end user to define types like that. Jenk 2 days ago The below type definition (TS) fits the ECMA schema for JSON: type JSON = string | number | boolean | null | JSON[] | {[name: string]: JSON} 2 replies →
motorest 2 days ago > JSON doesn’t really have data types beyond very simple onesWhat do you think primitive types are supposed to be? SJC_Hacker 1 day ago I guess my point was something like an ISO 8601 date would be beyond the scope of a built in data type given JSONs philosophy of a minimal spec. It’s up to the end user to define types like that. Jenk 2 days ago The below type definition (TS) fits the ECMA schema for JSON: type JSON = string | number | boolean | null | JSON[] | {[name: string]: JSON} 2 replies →
SJC_Hacker 1 day ago I guess my point was something like an ISO 8601 date would be beyond the scope of a built in data type given JSONs philosophy of a minimal spec. It’s up to the end user to define types like that.
Jenk 2 days ago The below type definition (TS) fits the ECMA schema for JSON: type JSON = string | number | boolean | null | JSON[] | {[name: string]: JSON} 2 replies →
JSON doesn’t really have data types beyond very simple ones
> JSON doesn’t really have data types beyond very simple ones
What do you think primitive types are supposed to be?
I guess my point was something like an ISO 8601 date would be beyond the scope of a built in data type given JSONs philosophy of a minimal spec. It’s up to the end user to define types like that.
The below type definition (TS) fits the ECMA schema for JSON:
2 replies →