Consider implementing "-" as per RFC6901

[rubenhazelaar]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
This is the best maintained JSON pointer library I can find, however I have a need to append values to arrays. RFC6901 does describe this is possible through the use of -, as you yourself describe in README.md here, however you have chosen not to implement this.

Describe the solution you'd like
I would like support for - both in getting values (although less important), but most importantly in setting them.

Describe alternatives you've considered
I am considering other JSON pointer libraries for supporting this, but only a few support -

[fredbi]

Yes indeed we have to implement this. It has been long overdue

[fredbi]

@rubenhazelaar this is definitely something to be released by the end of this month. It has been well perhaps 10 years without this. About Time to be feature complete

[rubenhazelaar]

@fredbi Great! Only skimmed through the code, please let me know if I can be of any value.

[fredbi]

@rubenhazelaar thank you for reminding me to implement this feature. I admit I totally forgot, even though this had been long identified as a short coming.

There is also another known limitation with the "json name provider" (the component that resolves struct fields into json names). I am going to address that one as well shortly.

I'll cut a v0.23.0 in a few days. Meanwhile, any feedback on the freshly merged feature is welcome. Is that okay for you?

[fredbi]

@rubenhazelaar added full support of the RFC. Available as release v0.23.0. Feel free to bring some feedback!

[rubenhazelaar]

Great! You're pretty fast I must say 💪, thank you! Had a look at #121 and although I am perhaps not the best person to judge this, it looks good. Both comments in code and README clearly describe what has changed and what the exceptions are. I am referring to the rebinding (also in relation to how it works when a slice is passed as value to Pointer.Set()) and the behavior when calling Pointer.Get().

[fredbi]

Thank you @rubenhazelaar . These were known limitations and I had plans in place already for a long time. But nobody had complained so far and I must admit I've procrastinated a bit on this addition (like "it is really something we'd need?").
So you raising this issue came as the spark needed to decide. Thank you.