Re: [Pharo-users] STON shouldn't care about shared references in JSON mode

Peter Uhnák wrote:

Hi Sven,

shouldn't it be set to #ignore by default for JSON then? Or is there a use case where it makes sense to have something else for JSON?

To keep STON practices / assumptions while using JSON to hold the data where STON is not supported yet, maybe? IIRC STON is positioning itself as JSON superset; but maybe only syntactic superset, while semantically it can be a bit different (so STONize to more low-level, JSON, syntax via STON; JSONize faithfully to JSON semantics using NeoJSON; but maybe I am just making things up).

Herbert: I am not talking about (infinitely) recursive references, but

I know; Sven explicitly asked what to do with cycles in that case, though.

referencing the same object, e.g.

Peter

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 6:08 PM, Herbert Vojčík <herby@mailbox.sk <mailto:herby@mailbox.sk>> wrote:

Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:

Hi Peter,

Both cases will pass using this expression:

String streamContents: [ :out | STON jsonWriter referencePolicy: #ignore; on: out; nextPut: d ].

The problem is what to do with cycles.

Be faithful to what JSON.stringify does in JS. See attachment. :-)

Herby

Sven

On 27 Mar 2018, at 17:43, Peter Uhnák<i.uhnak@gmail.com <mailto:i.uhnak@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi,

I don't think this should throw an error when I am producing JSON.

``` d := { 'a' -> #(). 'b' -> #(). } asDictionary.

STON toJsonString: d. ```

dtto this

``` a := {'hm'}.

d := { 'a' -> a. 'b' -> a. } asDictionary.

STON toJsonString: d. ```

Maybe I should forgo using STON>>toJson* out of laziness (it is preinstalled) and always go for NeoJSON?

Peter