On 04/06/2016 05:44 AM, J Decker wrote:
> encode into utf8 codepoints maybe? which would expand 0x80-0xFF by 1
> character each... and you could violate utf rules and encode a F880
> that's a 0 codepoint...
You mean for hashes? Hm.. that's an interesting idea, which might get us
a whole new encod
On 04/06/2016 05:26 AM, J Decker wrote:
> If the structures might mutate with time something like json is pretty brief.
> if you have high reliability, sqlite for instance will store a blob
> with only \0 for the 0 and \\ for \ ...
JSON doesn't handle binary welll, it's a text format. Usually, ba
Sorry just a sidenote;
err...
encode into utf8 codepoints maybe? which would expand 0x80-0xFF by 1
character each... and you could violate utf rules and encode a F880
that's a 0 codepoint...
(take a value, that's a codepoint, make a utf8 version of that
value... which for 0x0 to 0x7F is that char
If the structures might mutate with time something like json is pretty brief.
if you have high reliability, sqlite for instance will store a blob
with only \0 for the 0 and \\ for \ ...
which results in a copy or shift of data but only a simple comparison
if '\\' kinda like base 254 sorta :)
de
On 04/04/2016 10:02 PM, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> No but they might care about performance. How much of monotone's time
> is actually spent translating between binary and hex? Is this really a
> major performance bottleneck?
Well, not the conversion between hex and binary itself, no. But the
effec
