在 JSON 结果中定义函数是否有效？

It is not standard as far as I know. A quick look at http://json.org/ confirms this.

JSON explicitly excludes functions because it isn't meant to be a JavaScript-only data structure (despite the JS in the name).

No.

JSON is purely meant to be a data description language. As noted on http://www.json.org, it is a "lightweight data-interchange format." - not a programming language.

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON, the "basic types" supported are:

• Number (integer, real, or floating point)
• String (double-quoted Unicode with backslash escaping)
• Boolean (true and false)
• Array (an ordered sequence of values, comma-separated and enclosed in square brackets)
• Object (collection of key:value pairs, comma-separated and enclosed in curly braces)
• null

Nope, definitely not.

If you use a decent JSON serializer, it won't let you serialize a function like that. It's a valid OBJECT, but not valid JSON. Whatever that website's intent, it's not sending valid JSON.

The problem is that JSON as a data definition language evolved out of JSON as a JavaScript Object Notation. Since Javascript supports eval on JSON, it is legitimate to put JSON code inside JSON (in that use-case). If you're using JSON to pass data remotely, then I would say it is bad practice to put methods in the JSON because you may not have modeled your client-server interaction well. And, further, when wishing to use JSON as a data description language I would say you could get yourself into trouble by embedding methods because some JSON parsers were written with only data description in mind and may not support method definitions in the structure.

Wikipedia JSON entry makes a good case for not including methods in JSON, citing security concerns:

Unless you absolutely trust the source of the text, and you have a need to parse and accept text that is not strictly JSON compliant, you should avoid eval() and use JSON.parse() or another JSON specific parser instead. A JSON parser will recognize only JSON text and will reject other text, which could contain malevolent JavaScript. In browsers that provide native JSON support, JSON parsers are also much faster than eval. It is expected that native JSON support will be included in the next ECMAScript standard.

Let's quote one of the spec's - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7159#section-12

The The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format Specification states:

JSON is a subset of JavaScript but excludes assignment and invocation.

Since JSON's syntax is borrowed from JavaScript, it is possible to use that language's "eval()" function to parse JSON texts. This generally constitutes an unacceptable security risk, since the text
could contain executable code along with data declarations. The same consideration applies to the use of eval()-like functions in any other programming language in which JSON texts conform to that
language's syntax.

So all answers which state, that functions are not part of the JSON standard are correct.

The official answer is: No, it is not valid to define functions in JSON results!

The answer could be yes, because "code is data" and "data is code". Even if JSON is used as a language independent data serialization format, a tunneling of "code" through other types will work.

A JSON string might be used to pass a JS function to the client-side browser for execution.

[{"data":[["1","2"],["3","4"]],"aFunction":"function(){return \"foo bar\";}"}]

This leads to question's like: How to "https://stackoverflow.com/questions/939326/execute-javascript-code-stored-as-a-string".

Be prepared, to raise your "eval() is evil" flag and stick your "do not tunnel functions through JSON" flag next to it.

Leave the quotes off...

var a = {"b":function(){alert('hello world');} };


a.b();

Function expressions in the JSON are completely possible, just do not forget to wrap it in double quotes. Here is an example taken from noSQL database design:

{
"_id": "_design/testdb",
"views": {
"byName": {
"map": "function(doc){if(doc.name){emit(doc.name,doc.code)}}"
}
}
}

A short answer is NO...

JSON is a text format that is completely language independent but uses conventions that are familiar to programmers of the C-family of languages, including C, C++, C#, Java, JavaScript, Perl, Python, and many others. These properties make JSON an ideal data-interchange language.

Look at the reason why:

When exchanging data between a browser and a server, the data can only be text.

JSON is text, and we can convert any JavaScript object into JSON, and send JSON to the server.

We can also convert any JSON received from the server into JavaScript objects.

This way we can work with the data as JavaScript objects, with no complicated parsing and translations.

But wait...

There is still ways to store your function, it's widely not recommended to that, but still possible:

We said, you can save a string... how about converting your function to a string then?

const data = {func: '()=>"a FUNC"'};

Then you can stringify data using JSON.stringify(data) and then using JSON.parse to parse it (if this step needed)...

And eval to execute a string function (before doing that, just let you know using eval widely not recommended):

eval(data.func)(); //return "a FUNC"

although eval is not recommended, this works:

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<body>


<h2>Convert a string written in JSON format, into a JavaScript function.</h2>


<p id="demo"></p>


<script>
function test(val){return val + " it's OK;}
var someVar = "yup";
var myObj = { "func": "test(someVar);" };
document.getElementById("demo").innerHTML = eval(myObj.func);
</script>


</body>
</html>

Via using NodeJS (commonJS syntax) I was able to get this type of functionality working, I originally had just a JSON structure inside some external JS file, but I wanted that structure to be more of a Class, with methods that could be decided at run time.

The declaration of 'Executor' in myJSON is not required.

var myJSON = {
"Hello": "World",
"Executor": ""
}


module.exports = {
init: () => { return { ...myJSON, "Executor": (first, last) => { return first + last } } }
}