You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There are a few reasons for not supporting "map" right now. The biggest one is: what representation should be done for the map?
dict
library(pairs) - key-value list
library(assoc)
library(rbtrees)
others?
"Dict" only allows atoms and integers for the keys (and the current library(protobufs) code doesn't convert between atoms and string). The other choices have different APIs and performance characteristics. Also, library(pairs) raises the question of ordering and whether it's significant.
For the short term, the best solution is probably a "helper" predicate that translates between the various representations and the protobuf "map". This shouldn't be difficult to write, but I don't feel like doing it until it's actually needed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
"Map" has no special support. You can do "map" fields, but it's a bit klunky; instead of something like this:
you need to do
There are a few reasons for not supporting "map" right now. The biggest one is: what representation should be done for the map?
"Dict" only allows atoms and integers for the keys (and the current library(protobufs) code doesn't convert between atoms and string). The other choices have different APIs and performance characteristics. Also, library(pairs) raises the question of ordering and whether it's significant.
For the short term, the best solution is probably a "helper" predicate that translates between the various representations and the protobuf "map". This shouldn't be difficult to write, but I don't feel like doing it until it's actually needed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: