SebastianVerified account

Too long talking about the config format, you mean? It distracted from Rome itself?

I was demoing all the features of Rome in like a 20 minute meeting and I spent half of it talking about the JSON parser because I had just finished it and was excited

hahaha fair enough. It does sound like a lot of extensions to JSON, my question would be whether it’s losslessly convertible to JSON, so things like NaN/Dates aren’t? I think if you have a file format that’s 1:1 convertible to/from JSON it’ll then need no explanation.

Going back to my original format but without the extra data types sounds like a good idea then and would fulfill those requirements. I guess I'll throw out the TOML parser I just wrote... I'll see how I'm feeling about it tomorrow lol

Love the spec. Not sure on the name, “son” just feels a little… short? It’s definitely an extension to JSON, not a subset? RJson could be Rome-JSON or Reworked-JSON or something. Or you could go PJson (practical/pliable/pretty) or UJson (unrestricted)?

Fwiw I don't like rjson, it's rome specific and doesn't roll of the tongue like at all

To be fair though, the parser etc would live inside Rome and the governance/maintenance would be combined anyway so the association isn’t necessarily bad