Re: [Cbor] Record proposal

[Kris Zyp <[e-mail]>]

> Actually, stats would be very interesting.
> I was assuming that the 1+1 setup comes with a number of 1+2 referencing records, the hit from going to 1+2 there as well would be relatively insignificant.
> Number are better than assumptions!

You are definitely right, using 1+2 tag for defining records is pretty
insignificant (around a quarter of percent in my tests). Anyway, I put
together some tests comparing CBOR packed, record structures, and
combinations with a couple test data structures, with my library, for
the sake of further comparisons:
https://gist.github.com/kriszyp/b623b85d2dc25ac9e3b07d8f39df9307

Anyway, seeing this, I am happy to go ahead and update my proposal to
use a 1+2 tag for defining records. And thinking about this, I don't
think my proposal necessarily even needs to mandate the tag ids used
for referencing records since those are dynamically assigned and
explicitly specified by the encoder itself (encoder obviously must not
conflict and use tag ids that will be used for other purposes), albeit
can encourage a certain range (presumably from the first-come
first-serve range).

Do you have any preference for a tag id to use? It looks like 279 is
the next in the contiguous block, but sounds like choosing aesthetic
characters is the new preference (29299/"rs" perhaps).

Anyway, thanks again for the helpful feedback, really appreciate it!

Thanks,
Kris