| 20 Mar 2026 |
 emily | I really don't think so. the JSON iceberg is not the Nix iceberg | 11:27:26 |
| emily | a warning about input you don't control is not actionable or going to go anywhere, unless it's a truly unfixable interoperability problem | 11:28:29 |
| emily | it's unlikely JSON documents people produce solely for consumption in Nix will have duplicate keys because most language APIs won't do that | 11:29:07 |
| emily | Lix accepting escaped NUL codepoints in JSON that correctly-written Nixpkgs library functions violate their contract on is far more likely to cause interoperability issues than duplicate keys tbh | 11:30:11 |
| emily | (and that's a case where there actually is current and historical divergence, so a warning would be much more justifiable there...) | 11:30:58 |
| emily | interesting to see simd-json diverge, though it also has several correctness issues open on GitHub, some from years ago 😅 | 11:34:00 |
| emily | wonder if they somehow get better perf from that result or something | 11:34:38 |
| emily | are you sure it's not storing both values in a parse tree type form and the lookup is just terminating on the first one actually? | 11:35:18 |
 Coca | My hunch was that simd-json can get the earliest acceptable value and then stop parsing, at least with the tape Value, but I would have to see | 11:35:49 |
| emily | oh I guess it's the same serde type(?) | 11:36:05 |
| emily | ah I see | 11:36:08 |
| Coca | its not the same serde type to be clear tho | 11:36:30 |
| emily | yeah if it's looking up from a string rather than parsing into a full DOM that makes sense | 11:36:31 |
| emily | also means it'll happily eat up a ton of invalid documents... | 11:36:43 |
