Re: [Cbor] hildjj/cbor-map-entries: Explicit Map datatype for CBOR, in array format Sat, 20 February 2021 03:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B3233A1060 for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 19:43:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.983
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gWF5Xng3U5Tv for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 19:43:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9054C3A105F for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 19:43:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id DIpvlx6175RiADJAnlYojZ; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 03:43:13 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20180828_2048; t=1613792593; bh=f45J+9SPTZluUnB2If5pywwr9qwpBvJ3mCqBs4RITQ0=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID; b=gP2dq33BKnmiExiE86Y9tIH7RgyZ9w7HPRabDh95iXrk5U0AvAevVAUvbU4XfB9v6 jGnBZJZdp4iagpFUI5mhlLlDlTHhzSmxJRvvSdHC2I0+ZlMU5p2xu7b+z9t5M7tTp0 Ht4D/OkN5A5mEQkbrcdb3H5+onPlV7bOhfY8AXuTpPzFXnu4SyQT1gO0TDW7wpGrvr f5jRrO6jz9jzQyab7ZyecW0VPh2y4uLt0OESeB0lU796/7ItN5vWUnC3S49cNBZxbF ZCi3KfBZfKy70idjtP8v9u+y6pRFNzheKMxw4V/2Cwr3VGB/WfFjcEnUD4YEeYcZBr KpKcwDoJ5zvlA==
Received: from ([IPv6:2601:192:4a00:430:222:fbff:fe91:d396]) by with ESMTPA id DJAklIqgCsx4XDJAllvpZF; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 03:43:12 +0000
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=15.00;st=legit
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 11K3h9Nh001814; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 22:43:09 -0500
Received: (from worley@localhost) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id 11K3h8b2001810; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 22:43:08 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: worley set sender to using -f
From: (Dale R. Worley)
To: (Dale R. Worley)
In-Reply-To: <> (
Sender: (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 22:43:07 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] hildjj/cbor-map-entries: Explicit Map datatype for CBOR, in array format
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 03:43:20 -0000 (Dale R. Worley) writes:
> Carsten Bormann <> writes:
>> Do we agree that an order-preserving map occurs often enough to
>> warrant a 1+1 (or even 1+0?) tag?
> I may have missed the discussion, but do we have a clear defition of
> "order-preserving"?  Naively, that seems to include every issue about
> how you compare values ever asked.

Ha-ha-ha!  I see my mistake...

If you had said "ordered map", I would think "a set of key/value pairs
in a particular order".

But if you say "order-preserving map", my mathematical training kicks in
and I think "a map F where for every a less than b, F(a) is less than
F(b)".  So for an *order-preserving map*, there must be a defined sense
of comparison between keys, and also a defined sense of comparison
between values!