We have an MVP implementation of progressive containers and associated machinery in:
Currently we are using TreeHashType::Container for progressive containers, because they behave essentially the same as containers, i.e. they are never packed.
At this stage, adding a new type just for progressive containers seems to be unnecessary work for no (?) benefit. It would require rippling changes into ssz_types (which is currently unchanged by progressive containers!) and milhouse, just for the sake of it. There is no benefit to, or need, in either library.
TreeHashType usage in ssz_types:
https://github.com/sigp/ssz_types/blob/6b615bf96e86926f45e19560d5ea052d38544218/src/tree_hash.rs#L24-L37
And milhouse:
https://github.com/sigp/milhouse/blob/4d88c724b265109823b801c89b17cbb1ddad3837/src/utils.rs#L68-L71
Mostly opening this issue so we have this decision documented and can revisit it in future if necessary.
We have an MVP implementation of progressive containers and associated machinery in:
Currently we are using
TreeHashType::Containerfor progressive containers, because they behave essentially the same as containers, i.e. they are never packed.At this stage, adding a new type just for progressive containers seems to be unnecessary work for no (?) benefit. It would require rippling changes into
ssz_types(which is currently unchanged by progressive containers!) andmilhouse, just for the sake of it. There is no benefit to, or need, in either library.TreeHashTypeusage inssz_types:https://github.com/sigp/ssz_types/blob/6b615bf96e86926f45e19560d5ea052d38544218/src/tree_hash.rs#L24-L37
And
milhouse:https://github.com/sigp/milhouse/blob/4d88c724b265109823b801c89b17cbb1ddad3837/src/utils.rs#L68-L71
Mostly opening this issue so we have this decision documented and can revisit it in future if necessary.