Anyone have any comments on what I suggested below? Barry On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Personally -- to me, it seems like you're getting hung up on the word "add." > ... >> "add" means what the format definition says it means, because otherwise >> we have to rationalise all of the different systems people might use it with >> to make sense. > > OK, I'll buy that. Then let's take a different approach, and make it > clearer that it's Humpty Dumpty's version of "add", so maybe neither I > nor Alice will get hung up on it: > > OLD > The "add" operation adds a new value at the target location. The > operation object MUST contain a "value" member that specifies the > value to be added. > NEW > The "add" operation performs the following function, depending upon > what the target location references (see details below): > > o If the target location specifies an array index, a new value is > inserted into the array at the specified index. > > o If the target location specifies an object member that does not > already exist, a new member is added to the object. > > o If the target location specifies an object member that does > exist, that member's value is replaced. > END > > That may be wordier than we need, but I think it makes the point... > feel free to wordsmith. With something like that, I think we can say > that we had to pick a name, "add" was picked, and it means exactly > what we choose it to mean - neither more nor less. And that's glory > for you. > > Barry