Are there standards you'd like to see included in the ecosystem? #333
Replies: 2 comments 4 replies
-
I have been personally working on with IEEE Std 1609.2-2022, ETSI TS 103 097, and ETSI TS 102 941 quite some time, I was planning to make PR probably quite soon, just that you know it. IEEE Std 1609.2-2022 is pretty big and I have also tested correctness of the COER codec against that. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Some standards have massive amount of fields in structs, and most of them can be optional. Builder pattern would be useful for these. Implementing those in hand take enormous amount of time, so that would require using procedural macros. I have been playing around with bon, maybe we could use that in standards in the meantime if we ever implement on our own macros? Builder pattern is also useful on guaranteeing the backwards compatibility for any code that uses those standards. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Are there standards that you'd like to see but aren't currently available? Please post suggestions of standards that could become crates below 🙂
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions