Clarifying "const" usage.

[djpadz]

It would seem to me that const is the same as a single-valued enum. If that's correct, then that should be noted. If it's not, then the difference should also be noted.

[Relequestual]

Thanks for your contribution! You are correct. There are lots of equivolencies in JSON Schema. This info likely belongs on the Understandibg JSON Schema website, probably not in the spec document.

Is there anywhere else in the spec where we detail similar comparisons?

[awwright]

We document equivalencies where theres no-effect behavior, e.g. how minLength: 0 is the same as no keyword. It might be worth it to mention that enum and const have similar behavior if we can keep it under a few words.

[djpadz]

FWIW, I think that it's important to point out equivalencies wherever they may exist, not so much for those who are writing specs, but for those who are writing code generators. It'd save a fair amount of confusion, not to mention unintentional interpretation. Basically, something like this would tell an implementer that const can be coded as:

def const(what):
    return enum([what])

[handrews]

@djpadz there are too many ways for things to be equivalent for us to address within the spec, which is more than long enough already. However, adding notes for implementors (of anything- code generation included) to the json-schema.org site would be much appreciated!

That said, I don't feel strongly either way about this particular note. If @Relequestual and @awwright are in favor of it, I'm fine with merging it.