Re: [Cbor] A CBOR tag for alternatives/unions, request for comments

[Christian Amsüss <[e-mail]>]

Hello Michael, Carsten,

On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 02:12:43PM +0000, Michael Peyton Jones wrote:
> If you'll permit me a toy example, suppose we have a balanced
> binary tree of numbers. In Haskell, the data type definition would look
> like this:

Right, multiply tagged items are something I did not consider
originally. (My mental model for these was shaped by Rust where there is
often type information available, so that an Option<Option<Option<u8>>>
has all the information available to still fit in 16 bit, but that's of
course only available on types that are just repetitive and not
recursive).

I'd still be slightly happier if this would take less of the 1+1 space
(121 and 122, maybe? That would suffice for the deep parts of the tree),
but given it also has Carsten's support (who is the other expert for the
registry), I'd be OK with it.

The policy for registering these are "specification required", so it all
doesn't have to wait for notable-tags to be full and done -- and I'm
just about to send out another mail suggesting to use this. What's your
plan for progressing with this?

BR
Christian

-- 
There's always a more constrained fish.
  -- Qui-Gon Jinn