Introduce CharReaderBuilder::ecma404Mode #1333
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
cdunn2001
approved these changes
Nov 4, 2021
|
@cdunn2001 done! |
axic
commented
Nov 4, 2021
meson.build
Outdated
| @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ project( | |||
| # 2. /include/json/version.h | |||
| # 3. /CMakeLists.txt | |||
| # IMPORTANT: also update the SOVERSION!! | |||
| version : '1.9.4', | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was missed in c4904b2
|
@cdunn2001 let me know if there's anything else I need to do here? |
|
@cdunn2001 @baylesj @BillyDonahue is anything else needed here? |
|
Any chance to get this merged? |
Thanks for waiting what turns out to have been an incredibly long time. Finally merging this now that I have fixed the CI system. |
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Instead of a finished PR, this is an initial one to judge appetite for it.
I found out through testing that our assumption what strict means doesn't exactly match. Strictness according to ECMA-404 is a bit closer what we expected. For reference: ECMA-404 and ECMA-262. Additionally RFC4627 implies no BOM is needed.
If this feature is welcome, I can look into adding tests for it.