> What are your thoughts on first starting with support for JSONC? It has
> no implications other than comments (single-line and multi-line) and
> trailing commas. We could collaborate and commit that, and then
> subsequently work on JSON5 support. It should enable the JSON5 support
> patches to be even smaller than what you posted already.
I also sent my patchset[1] for JSONC/JSON5. I wanted to organize it
into smaller patches and stress test it before sharing, but I think
it's in a good enough shape now.
My logic was similar: the first patch in the series is the JSONC
support, as that's a feature usable on its own.
> Do we want to support JSONC/JSON5 in the incremental parser? My
> inclination is yes so the parsers are consistent in what they support.
I included it for completeness, but the incremental parser has no real
user other than the tests, and it's complex. A patch without that
would be significantly smaller. Most (nearly all) of the corner case
issues I identified while testing the patch were also in that.
[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAN4CZFP5dvO4sij414YYG%2B4Hghf3M5m2oPiyR_vNgRj3vhQ_0Q%40mail.gmail.com
