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
The reason I want these types in the standard set is that they are generic and thus useful for building simple vendor-agnostic interfaces. An integrator could surely provide equivalent definitions but it would result in a slightly less composable solution.
I found it to be often useful to have small fixed-size arrays for representation of arbitrary arrays and matrices without the array prefix:
uavcan.primitive.array.Real16x2
...Real16x9
uavcan.primitive.array.Real32x2
...Real32x9
uavcan.primitive.array.Real64x2
...Real64x9
That would be 24 new types in total.
@thirtytwobits should we add this to the core set?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: