Re: [Cbor] hildjj/cbor-map-entries: Explicit Map datatype for CBOR, in array format

worley@ariadne.com Sat, 20 February 2021 03:43 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B3233A1060 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 19:43:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.983
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcastmailservice.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gWF5Xng3U5Tv for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 19:43:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-08v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-08v.sys.comcast.net [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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9054C3A105F for <cbor@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 19:43:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-ch2-19v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.115]) by resqmta-ch2-08v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id DIpvlx6175RiADJAnlYojZ; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 03:43:13 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcastmailservice.net; 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 hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([IPv6:2601:192:4a00:430:222:fbff:fe91:d396]) by resomta-ch2-19v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPA id DJAklIqgCsx4XDJAllvpZF; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 03:43:12 +0000
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=15.00;st=legit
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 11K3h9Nh001814; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 22:43:09 -0500
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id 11K3h8b2001810; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 22:43:08 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
To: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Cc: cabo@tzi.org, cbor@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <87zh02kpf5.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> (worley@ariadne.com)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 22:43:07 -0500
Message-ID: <878s7jo14k.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/HmL-d3seGCIya0oOPXgaPQMXdz8>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] hildjj/cbor-map-entries: Explicit Map datatype for CBOR, in array format
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <cbor.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 03:43:20 -0000

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) writes:
> Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> 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!

Dale