Open phgachoud opened 4 years ago
The lib sticks to the JSON specification, and the set of JSON values are limited.
So using JSON_VALUE sounds easier to read rather than like items.item
However, if this is possible, I invite you to send a pull request with what you have in mind, and maybe with an example.
My point on this is
class MY_JSON_ARRAY
inherit
JSON_ARRAY
redefine
items
end
feature {NONE} -- Implementation
items: ARRAYED_LIST[MY_JSON_VALUE]
end
instead of having to redefine everything because they are anchored types!
class MY_JSON_ARRAY
inherit
JSON_ARRAY
redefine
items,
put,
......
end
feature {NONE} -- Implementation
items: ARRAYED_LIST[MY_JSON_VALUE]
end
Ad what would be the additional value of MY_JSON_VALUE ?
Ad what would be the additional value of MY_JSON_VALUE ?
None, actually I almost finished a pull request integrating the needs (or mines @least) for SCOOP integration. I'm in the process of testing them and will write you once done.
MY_JSON_VALUE was done only in the case no changes could have been done to JSON_VALUE
Trying to inherit from JSON_ARRAY I'd like to have a MY_JSON_VALUE used in all the routines, so much as parameter than as return type. Was there a reason to make those types anchored and not
like items.item
???Any way to refactor it? Pull request??