On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 20:09:41 -0400
David Shawley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Aug 8, 2019, at 3:55 PM, Chris Angelico <email@example.com> wrote:
> I proposed something similar about a year ago . I really like the idea
> of a protocol for this. Especially since the other encoders already use
> this approach. Should I reboot this approach? The implementation was
> really simple .
I think this would be worthwhile.
Here is a use case where it may remove some pain from users'life:
Since __json__ protocol is being raised again, I would just like to point out that during the previous discussion the term has been used in two different contexts:
1) allowing complete custom serialization (i.e. controlling the JSON encoding)
Which was an approach I mostly liked, but thought it was generally not acceptable here (because of the total control of the encoding). My reasoning was that I believed that the only JSON type "lacking the full support" was really *JSON number*, so in order to keep my proposal's impact small I went on with the custom serialization just for the JSON number. That said I would consider __json__ protocol to be otherwise more elegant solution.
2) only allowing serialization of Python native types (but with custom values as 'for_json' in simplejson does)
This was commented on as already achievable with custom encoder class (or custom 'default' function). I did not really care, because it did not seem to bring any advantage or a fix for my problem problem.
To resolve the bpo issue with numpy, one would need to implement complete custom serialization (1) or simply convert numpy number types into Python number types.