Hello, and thanks for your contribution!

I'm a bot set up to make sure that the project can legally accept your contribution by verifying you have signed the PSF contributor agreement (CLA).

Unfortunately our records indicate you have not signed the CLA. For legal reasons we need you to sign this before we can look at your contribution. Please follow these steps to rectify the issue:

1. Sign the PSF contributor agreement
2. Wait at least a day and then check "Your Details" on bugs.python.org to see if your account has been marked as having signed the CLA (the delay is due to a person having to manually check your signed CLA)
3. Reply here saying you have completed the above steps

Thanks again to your contribution and we look forward to looking at it!

@berkerpeksag thanks! just added documentation for json.COMPACT

@berkerpeksag @brettcannon thanks! I've just updated PR according to changes you requested.

thanks @berkerpeksag ! I've just added changes corresponding to JSONEncoder

Codecov Report

Merging #72 into master will increase coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #72      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   82.38%   82.38%   +<.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1428     1428              
  Lines      351138   351147       +9     
==========================================
+ Hits       289282   289294      +12     
+ Misses      61856    61853       -3

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update d50f188...71c48e2. Read the comment docs.

@berkerpeksag @brettcannon any conclusion on this? :)

@andrewnester I've been waiting for the discussion of https://bugs.python.org/issue29540 to settle down and be resolved before commenting further.

@brettcannon looks like discussion stopped here https://bugs.python.org/issue29540 ..
any conclusion on this PR?

@andrewnester I just pinged the issue to explicitly see what people think about your attribute proposal.

I opened bpo-29863 to finalize the discussion of the constant since I think it got lost on the older issue that proposed a new compact argument to json.dump().

@brettcannon thanks! is there any link to discussion or some mailing list?

@andrewnester : http://bugs.python.org/issue29863

@andrewnester I just wanted to say sorry for the delay on making a decision for this. As I'm sure you have noticed on the issue it's basically split down the middle as to whether this PR should be accepted or not and so no one has made the final call.

Closing this since I just closed the issue.