Iteration weirdness

[Exaeta]

Feature Request

It seems that right now iterating over a json object iterates over it as though it was an array, which is counter intuitive from the C++ perspective, which you would expect to be iterated like a std::map.

I suggest json::as_map() and json::as_array() so that one can do:

void foobar (nlohmann::json js1, nlohmann::json js2)
{
  for (auto & x : js2.as_map())
  {
    foo(x.first, x.second);
  }

  for (auto & x : js2.as_array())
  {
    bar(x);
  }
}

Both would return proxy objects (objects that contain a reference to the original, and different begin() and end() functions.)

[nlohmann]

Have you seen the iteration_wrapper? Here is an example: https://github.com/nlohmann/json/blob/develop/doc/examples/iterator_wrapper.cpp

[pingsoli]

@nlohmann
Sorry to disturb you. How to merge two json arrays into one ? such as
[ { "name": "Ally", "age": "11" }, ... ] and [ {"name": "Bob", "age": "10"}, ... ] merge into
[ {"name": "Ally", "age": "11" }, ... , {"name": "Bob", "age": "10"}, .... ].

Using iterator can solve it , but, do you have another way? or a faster way?

I'm really sorry to trouble you, I'll appreciate your reply. Thanks.

[nlohmann]

@pingsoli see #428.

[Exaeta]

@nlohmann .key() and .value() are kinda weird from the C++ world. I think imitating std::map would be better personally.

[nlohmann]

I did not find a better way. PRs welcome!

[nlohmann]

@Exaeta Do you have an idea how to implement a better interface?

[nlohmann]

Any news on this?

[Exaeta]

I'm not super familiar with the implementation, but thinking about it, you'd probably lose the array vs object distinction if you did that, so maybe an obvious solution is not available.

[nlohmann]

Related: #874

[nlohmann]

I'm closing this. Hopefully, #874 solves this issue.