How to get the literal value of a number?

[grapland0]

For instance, for json content

{"value": 1.23456789234567892345678923456789234567892345678923456789}

I'd like to get a string-like 1.23456789234567892345678923456789234567892345678923456789 from parsed value.

This is useful not even for arbitrary precision floats, but for decimal floats. Number 0.1 has no accurate representation with IEEE754 binary float. Some users may want to pass this value as-is to their decimal float library, so they need the literal value.

[grisumbras]

Currently you will have to use basic_parser and write your own handler. The particular functions that deal with numbers are

bool on_number_part( string_view s, error_code& ec );
bool on_int64( int64_t i, string_view s, error_code& ec );
bool on_uint64( uint64_t u, string_view s, error_code& ec );
bool on_double( double d, string_view s, error_code& ec );

The string_view argument there is the literal text from the input that is being parsed.

[grapland0]

Thank you! Is it feasible to add a parser option to store all the numeric values as-is and provide API like `as_number_literal()" for access?

[grisumbras]

Store strings instead of numbers? Okay, the question is how will you then know that a particular string is a number?

[RoyBellingan]

to store something like
{"value": 1.23456789234567892345678923456789234567892345678923456789}

you will need 57 digit of precision which would require https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octuple-precision_floating-point_format
so a float256...

I am inclined to think the number above came from something like an arbitrary precision library...
So Is safe to assume is just better to handle them as string.

[grapland0]

For my specific use scenario, I just need decimal float, while I think they (with arb precision) fall in the same scope. Decimal float support is essential in financial and regulatory usage, while it is barely easy to make all API providers to go the preferred way to pass them as a string.

Section 6 of RFC 8259 and section 8 of ECMA-404 (as well as ISO 21778) enforce the string format of a number in JSON. In RFC standard, they recommand, but not enforce the precision and limit. ECMA and ISO standard have no spec about this.

I think it would be perfect for boost::json to have complete standard supported at common APIs.

If we have number literal support, the basic verification based on the standards is sufficient, at the boost::json end.

[RoyBellingan]

DecimalFloat 128 do not have enough digit of precision to store such long number, I am not aware if Decimal 256 even exists.

From https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8259#section-6

A JSON number such as 1E400
or 3.141592653589793238462643383279 may indicate potential
interoperability problems, since it suggests that the software that
created it expects receiving software to have greater capabilities
for numeric magnitude and precision than is widely available.

I think it says do not expect such number to be supported, because float64 is what you reasonably will find to be used.

[grisumbras]

So Is safe to assume is just better to handle them as string.

Handle them as strings how? You get a value that contains a string (jv == "0E0"). How do you determine that this not actually a string, but a number? Do you then attempt to parse it again?

... they recommand, but not enforce the precision and limit.

JSON spec does not mandate the maximum supported number precision out of necessity. It also doesn't mandate the maximum size of arrays, objects, and strings, because in practice there's always a size that wouldn't fit in computer's memory.

Again, let's imagine the parser just created a string instead of a number. Now you have a value that is a string. How do you know that it is a number? If you use some out-of-band information for this (e.g. there is a fixed format), then this is a custom scenario. And I don't see a generic solution to this.

Can you describe your scenario in more detail, so that I could look if a better solution than using basic_parser exists?

[grapland0]

My detailed scenario is like, I get 10 JSONs like {"ask": 538.02, "bid": 538.01} and I need to send a report in JSON to next service, with the accumulated value of all the "ask" fields from inputs. Here the expected result is 5380.2, or in boost::json way, 5.3802E3.

But this test fails:

TEST(utils_json, to_decimal)
{
  std::string input_sj = R"json({"ask": 538.02, "bid": 538.01})json";
  auto opt = boost::json::parse_options{
      .numbers = boost::json::number_precision::precise,
  };
  boost::json::value input_j = boost::json::parse(input_sj, {}, opt);
  double accu = 0.;
  for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
    accu += input_j.as_object().at("ask").as_double();
  }
  boost::json::value output_j = accu;
  std::string output_sj = boost::json::serialize(output_j);
  ASSERT_EQ(output_sj, "5.3802E3");
}

Expected equality of these values:
  output_sj
    Which is: "5.380200000000001E3"
  "5.3802E3"

The root cause here is, 538.02 cannot be represented in IEEE754 binary float. The error is ampfied and output to output_sj and failed the test.

The best way to resolve this problem is to provide raw access to number value. But as you said, we still need to type it as some kind of "number", so I'm proposing something like this (with Decimal as user defined decimal float number class):

TEST(utils_json, to_decimal_2)
{
  std::string input_sj = R"json({"ask": 538.02, "bid": 538.01})json";
  auto opt = boost::json::parse_options{
      .numbers = boost::json::number_precision::as_literal,
  };
  boost::json::value input_j = boost::json::parse(input_sj, {}, opt);
  Decimal accu("0");
  for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
    std::string value = input_j.as_object().at("ask").as_number_literal();
    accu += Decimal(value);
  }
  boost::json::value output_j =
      boost::json::value_from(boost::json::number_literal_wrapper(accu.to_string()));
  std::string output_sj = boost::json::serialize(output_j);
  ASSERT_EQ(output_sj, "5.3802E3");
}

[RoyBellingan]

But that is intrinsic in how float works, and the same reason why should avoid to do x == y for them. But you have to compare if number are "close enought" within an epsilon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_epsilon

I once again suggest using string instead of floating point number.

A practical case that cames to my mind is when working with google ads, they send all economic amount as an integer, where they multiply the value by 1E6 to avoid problem with rounding or float conversion etc.

So 10.45 will be 10450000

[grisumbras]

So, here's an example of a program that uses a custom handler to populate the structure you described: https://godbolt.org/z/TbsbfzzTr.
Essentially, the handler implents a state machine that fills the fields if the incoming data has the right structure.

In a real program the handler would be a bit more complicated at the very least because you probably would want more specific error codes.

I understand, that your real data probably has more complex structure. And writing a handler that deals with such data is significantly more complicated. We implement most of this functionality already in parse_into. I can see the argument, that we should provide a way for users to use big numbers and decimal numbers with parse_into. Is that something you'd be interested in?

[grapland0]

I once again suggest using string instead of floating point number.

It is not feasible for me as an API user of external web services. If I'm crawling data from SEC.gov and they give me a HTTP response with 580.02 as a JSON number, there is no way to persuade them to change the API just for me, especially when they are indeed providing the exact number in a way conforming to the ECMA and ISO standard of JSON.

I can see the argument, that we should provide a way for users to use big numbers and decimal numbers with parse_into. Is that something you'd be interested in?

Structured import is a good thing, while can we have literal value access in unstructured way just as easy as value.as_double()?

Furthermore, I think literal value access could be a first-class way to access JSON numbers, because:

1. It provides a way to users to have full access on any reasonable JSON content with ISO/RFC/ECMA standards. Basically int64 and double are lossy representation of number values defined in standards.

2. "don't pay for what you don't use". What if an user just wants a Single Precision number? If they have access to literal value, they can directly get the SP value as they need. Currently they have to down cast from the result of as_double(). The double precision ops involved are not only unnecessary, but also quite luxury in most hardware platforms, especially for embedded systems without hardware DP.

3. If someday boost::json goes to the c++ standard, I guess all builtin numeric types must be supported, or there must be a reason why only int64/double are specifically selected to be supported.

4. ECMA/ISO/RFC standards have no definition of "float". 1E3 and 1000 are identcial as number in JSON. So there looks like a unnecessary round trip to convert them to one kind of ints and doubles and then join together logically at user ends (with to_number). User should choose a representation of number at their end after the value gets populated from JSON content.

[RoyBellingan]

If the objective is to pass the test, you might try to use also an example based on https://live.boost.org/doc/libs/1_87_0/libs/json/doc/html/json/examples.html

And write in a format that is closer to the original json style ?

[grisumbras]

I think literal value access could be a first-class way to access JSON numbers

What is literal access? What is stored in the json::value object?

[grapland0]

What is literal access? What is stored in the object?json::value

literal value access is the access to the raw string of the number value in source JSON.

It can reuse the facility of the current string value.

[grisumbras]

Access from where? There's already access to it from handlers. After parsing is done, the "raw string of the number in source json" is gone. How would you access it then?