Re: [RFC] Preserve Fractional Part in JSON encode

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 5:18 AM, Juan Basso <jrbasso@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Everyone has any concern on the constant name as Andrea mentioned? Should > we keep or rename it? If this name is fine and there is no other concerns > probably in 3 days (when completes 2 weeks) this RFC can be moved to > voting, right? > > > Thanks, > Juan Basso > I prefer the originally proposed constant name (JSON_PRESERVE_FRACTIONAL_PART) over JSON_FLOAT_ADD_POINT_ZERO. I've did a quick check and we have a constant called FILTER_FLAG_ALLOW_FRACTION so maybe JSON_PRESERVE_FRACTION would be a bit simpler and consistent. But that would still imply that without this option we truncate (non-zero) fractional parts, so maybe something like JSON_PRESERVE_ZERO_FRACTION. I think PRESERVE is better than ADD because we aren't really adding something but making sure that it won't be lost through the json_encode. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu