search

ietf-wg-jsonpath / draft-ietf-jsonpath-base

Development of a JSONPath internet draft
https://ietf-wg-jsonpath.github.io/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/
Other
58 stars 20 forks source link

Delete surprising behaviour sentence #456

Closed glyn closed 1 year ago

glyn commented 1 year ago

Based on a comment from @timbray and the attempt to delete this sentence in https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/pull/454.

glyn commented 1 year ago

I don't think the text adds any value and, in most readers, is going to lead to puzzlement and fear that they're missing something important.

You're probably right.

The fact that you're going to all this work to motivate a feature that isn't actually used makes me wonder why it's even in the spec.

I've deleted it. I doubt we'll miss it once we've gotten over the deletion.

cabo commented 1 year ago

Well, the sentence points out that value() is not special in any way (we have discussed variants of this function). It is just the one that fits naturally into what we have been doing elsewhere. The sentence is true. It also provides information that may not be obvious. So how does it not add value? It is true that it is a note and has no normative effect, so deleting it only hurts those people who now independently have to discover this.

glyn commented 1 year ago

@timbray WDYT to @cabo's rationale for keeping the sentence? I can see advantages either way.

glyn commented 1 year ago

@timbray WDYT to @cabo's rationale for keeping the sentence? I can see advantages either way.

@timbray Closing. Please re-open if you feel sufficiently strongly.

gregsdennis commented 1 year ago

I think stating the rationale behind not having that conversion is reasonable.