> Aren't JSON parsers technically not following the standard if they don't reliably store a number that is not representable by a IEEE754 double precision float?

That sentence has four negations and I honestly can't figure out what it means.

>> Aren't JSON parsers technically not following the standard if they don't reliably store a number that is not representable by a IEEE754 double precision float?

>That sentence has four negations and I honestly can't figure out what it means.

This example is halfway as bad as the one Orwell gives in my favorite essay, "Politics the the English Language"¹.

Compare and contrast:

>I am not, indeed, sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who once seemed not unlike a seventeenth-century Shelley had not become, out of an experience ever more bitter in each year, more alien (sic) to the founder of that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to tolerate.

Orwell has much to say about either.

_____

¹https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

Aren't {X}? -> isn't it true that {X}?

{X} = JSON parsers technically [are] not following the standard if {reason}

{reason} = [JSON parsers] don't reliably store a number that {what kind of number?}

{what kind of number} = number that is not representable by a IEEE754 double precision float

seems simple

“The standard technically requires that JSON parsers reliably store numbers, even those that are not representable by an IEEE double”.

(It seems this claim is not true, but at least that’s what the sentence means.)