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
I have been using the annotated_evidence field of the Appraisal, but since it's ctually be an extension, I am thinking about creating my own extension to serve a similar purpose. Where the annotated-evidence takes BTreeMap<String, RawValue>, the map extension looks like Map(Vec<(ExtensionValue, ExtensionValue)>).
This seems sub-optimal. First, it's debatable whether this is a map at all given that it allows duplicate values. More importantly, though, I want to put a somewhat deeply-nested struct into my extension. Ideally I wouldn't have to parse the whole thing into extension types. Any thoughts about changing the extensions to use the existing value structs (or better yet, the ones from the json crate)?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I have been using the
annotated_evidence
field of theAppraisal
, but since it's ctually be an extension, I am thinking about creating my own extension to serve a similar purpose. Where theannotated-evidence
takesBTreeMap<String, RawValue>
, the map extension looks likeMap(Vec<(ExtensionValue, ExtensionValue)>)
.This seems sub-optimal. First, it's debatable whether this is a map at all given that it allows duplicate values. More importantly, though, I want to put a somewhat deeply-nested struct into my extension. Ideally I wouldn't have to parse the whole thing into extension types. Any thoughts about changing the extensions to use the existing value structs (or better yet, the ones from the json crate)?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: