Re: [Cbor] Use of cuts in maps

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jim,


> On Aug 7, 2019, at 23:45, Jim Schaad <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> One of the issues that I have always had with the way that cuts are
> specified in CDDL is that they don't behave the way that I think they should
> in terms of going from the most specific to the most general.  I think that
> I have found a way around this problem and want to verify that it would
> work.
> 
> 
> Start I start with
> 
> map-example = {
>   ? "optional-key" : int,
>   map-example-extensions,
>   * tstr => any
> }
> 
> map-example-extensions = ()
> 
> The next document comes along and does
> 
> map-example-extensions /= (

This would need to be a »//=«.

>   "another-optional-key" : tstr,
>  “and a third": bstr
> )

And these would need a »?« each to be independently optional; right now you are saying they need to be both there.

> 
> If I compile the two modules together, do you believe that this would be a
> match or not?
> 
> { “and a third" : 15 }

With the above changes, this would match the »”and a third”:« and then fail on the bstr post-cut, so the whole map would not match.

I would probably restructure this to:

map-example = {
  ? optional-key : int,
  * map-example-extension,
  * tstr => any
}

map-example-extension = ()

map-example-extension //= (another-optional-key : tstr,)
map-example-extension //= (“and a third”: bstr,)

so further additions can be made without excluding the ones already made.

Grüße, Carsten