I think { type: "jsonc" } makes sense because deno.json files are actually valid jsonc files (and this isn't planned to change per #20681)

That means that doing import DenoConfig from "../deno.json" with { type: "json" }; actually may fail because the file might be jsonc under the hood. This is counter-intuitive because even the Deno compiler complains, telling you that you can only import json files with type: "json" even though that fails

Note that if you don't want to use fs, you could use type: "text" which is planned (see here and here) (but not implemented yet), but

It's a bit unintuitive to see from "../deno.json" with { type: "text" };
We would have to remove the compiler error telling you that you must use type: "json" when importing .json files because it would actually be the wrong import attribute when dealing with jsonc files like deno.json.

Cascading implications

You could argue the compiler strictness around { type: "json" } would have to be loosened anyway because many other projects allow json5 content in .json files (so you would at least have to support { type: "json" }, { type: "json5" }, { type: "jsonc" } at which point maybe just allowing { type: "text" } doesn't sound so bad

Some people have even suggested allowing to remove the import assertion entirely with a flag like #26157

Consider supporting importing files as jsonc / json5 #20374

Description

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions

Consider supporting importing files as `jsonc` / `json5` #20374