@sir Would it be worth removing `dataLENGTH` and `data` types in favor of people using
`[]u8` and `[length]u8`?

Not sure if you prefer expressiveness or simplicity.

Also curious on your rationale for the union type. Is that to allow generic entries into `map[A]B`?

@badtuple I thought about making people use []u8 and [length]u8, but it's really not an array of u8. It's a blob with some other structure that is not representable or not desirable to represent with this encoding.

The desire for the union type is driven out of a desire to have a union type. There are many cases where it is useful.

@badtuple that being said, I'm open to a better syntax than contacting a number with the type name. It makes sense for u8 et al but less so for arbitrarily sized blobs

@sir does bare allow aggregate types to contain other aggregate types except for map keys? Ex. a list of lists.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!