Typo in json.gbnf

[hi-cannon]

Small fix for typo in the number rule:

[eE] [-+]? [0-9] [1-9]{0,15}

This would allow one leading zero and no trailing zeros; e.g. forbidding e+10, e+100 etc. I assume the reverse was intended

[CISC]

e+01 or even e+0 is also valid notation.

[hi-cannon]

e+01 or even e+0 is also valid notation.

It is valid, but arbitrary. E+10 is also valid and very much not arbitrary. The rule could be [0-9] [0-9]{0,15} instead, if that behavior is truly desired. However the number rule in json_arr.gbnf would suggest this was not the intention:

number ::= ("-"? ([0-9] | [1-9] [0-9]{0,15})) ("." [0-9]+)? ([eE] [-+]? [1-9] [0-9]{0,15})? ws

This reflects the change I proposed, and covers all valid scientific notation, unlike the existing rule which forbids a significant number of valid outputs.

[CISC]

It used to be ([eE] [-+]? [0-9]+), it was @ochafik that changed it to what it is today in #7841.

[hi-cannon]

If this rule isn't wrong then the one in json_arr.gbnf must be. But I'm assuming it's the rule that forbids e+10 (or any zeros other than the first digit) that was unintended

[hi-cannon]

Just to lay it out clearly

json.gbnf:
number ::= ("-"? ([0-9] | [1-9] [0-9]{0,15})) ("." [0-9]+)? ([eE] [-+]? [0-9] [1-9]{0,15})? ws

json_arr.gbnf:
number ::= ("-"? ([0-9] | [1-9] [0-9]{0,15})) ("." [0-9]+)? ([eE] [-+]? [1-9] [0-9]{0,15})? ws

The rules are exactly the same except for the last two character groups, so that's why I figure it was a typo. The json_arr.gbnf version looks more correct to me, but do tell me if I am mistaken

[CISC]

Just to lay it out clearly

json.gbnf:
number ::= ("-"? ([0-9] | [1-9] [0-9]{0,15})) ("." [0-9]+)? ([eE] [-+]? [0-9] [1-9]{0,15})? ws

json_arr.gbnf:
number ::= ("-"? ([0-9] | [1-9] [0-9]{0,15})) ("." [0-9]+)? ([eE] [-+]? [1-9] [0-9]{0,15})? ws

The rules are exactly the same except for the last two character groups, so that's why I figure it was a typo. The json_arr.gbnf version looks more correct to me, but do tell me if I am mistaken

Both changed in the aforementioned PR, one (or both) of them must be wrong, they used to be [0-9]+. :) @ochafik?