> Is there any chance to reprioritize 3069?
There's almost no chance. It's going to suck for you right now, but
there's every possibility that it will be fixed in Go 1.1.
Dave.
That's not correct. The xml package does serialize anonymous fields,
and the json marshaling of anonymous fields was dropped so that it
does marshaling the same way, by embedding the fields from the
anonymous field.
--
Gustavo Niemeyer
http://niemeyer.net
http://niemeyer.net/plus
http://niemeyer.net/twitter
http://niemeyer.net/blog
-- I'm not absolutely sure of anything.
> 2) If I or someone else were to implement embedded anon fields in the
> json package, does that help my chances?
It would not be accepted into the standard Go tree for Go 1. You are
welcome to fork the encoding/json package and make changes there,
however.
Dave.
I'm sorry about that. In our defense, we broke your code
so that when we implement anonymous fields better later
(omitting the "Common": { ... } wrapping from the encoding),
it won't break your code then.
It is far better for us to break everything now and then stop
than to break things slowly for a longer period of time.
Part of the deal with Go 1 is that we are, as much as possible,
promising not to break your programs with Go 1.1 and so on.
But getting to something we're comfortable guaranteeing has
required a lot of churn; I expect that many more significant things
have also broken in your programs.
Russ