dynamic instead of generic?

[ravensorb]

Would it make more sense to use the "dynamic" data type rather than a generic? This would probably provide a lot more flexibility for working with json settings

[GeertvanHorrik]

This should be possible thanks to #8

[gep13]

@ravensorb I am going to work on the premise that this is no longer required, as there wasn't an additional comment after @GeertvanHorrik mentioned that it should now be possible. Feel free to raise another issue if there is still an additional requirement.

[ravensorb]

A JObject is ok, however a dynamic is still easier to use and allows for more options within the script/code base.

[gep13]

@ravensorb can you provide some examples of what you are trying to achieve? Happy to re-open if there is still a requirement.