Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 78482105B9 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 07:04:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 30161 invoked by uid 500); 20 Feb 2014 07:04:57 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 29579 invoked by uid 500); 20 Feb 2014 07:04:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 29570 invoked by uid 99); 20 Feb 2014 07:04:55 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 07:04:55 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at spf.trusted-forwarder.org) Received: from [209.85.160.50] (HELO mail-pb0-f50.google.com) (209.85.160.50) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 07:04:51 +0000 Received: by mail-pb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id rq2so1529108pbb.9 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 23:04:30 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=Ufno6VFbfDgEF6cRZYrUivDN8QcBHGyFUBh5EOFcLg0=; b=S1IK7FDGtq4Rmp0oCoUA+1X99mqyAX4RlGIESRZ5l1mhwEiId4pLX+DO5UZ9MD0DG5 isDCoSVtql4MnWcT4lYbOhNmv+5q2v5Ornl+0w8SwYfjvUE+ARa5uCiHSmWDREv2YamK PfgulTZjKtZCSzcwUpPG/6DRlejVYB+KDXzVTD0XWAMIvWHlF8J8gchOckxEJOKskxe6 dR9euhAHpCQqP4UiRv7hxjPhpi2/NAF+84zckqkWL++vh9shZQYlm08WAlqiRoGBVOaF dGLxC6gzBcOLU2Rda+idxNVgCSKKa7VjUjy/bkGjtfhCepfKnzZS8TEHFry0BNcqwu4s taWg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl1Mr7oFr3E1RbcT4d+JCIf75neW+wrJy8FhtiZNiAF73jht+XMN6RCdms94a3UlsrNScbk X-Received: by 10.69.0.10 with SMTP id au10mr313180pbd.48.1392879870197; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 23:04:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: mark@reevuit.com Received: by 10.70.31.132 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 23:03:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <8E47D107-40D4-4022-A812-68E46246D7E0@couchbase.com> From: Mark Hahn Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 23:03:50 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: huFWLEI0FtuVqn5nI4hoVqUdbQw Message-ID: Subject: Re: Duplicate fields in documents To: user Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b160505e0e05e04f2d11d2b X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --047d7b160505e0e05e04f2d11d2b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > No; nothing I know of but Erlang preserves key order. Try it, you'll be surprised. I know it's not in any spec but that's the way browsers behave, with the one exception I mentioned above. On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Jens Alfke wrote: > > On Feb 19, 2014, at 8:45 PM, Mark Hahn wrote: > > >> The Erlang JSON parser is already being weird and nonstandard in > >> preserving the order of keys > > > > Don't all javascript engines do the same? The one exception I can think > of > > is in chrome when you spell out a number, i.e. "one". > > No; nothing I know of but Erlang preserves key order. (I think it's > because Erlang parses JSON to a linked list of key-value pairs, while > everyone else uses a hash-table.) > > --Jens --047d7b160505e0e05e04f2d11d2b--