Hmm yes I see how that could be useful as a kind of "pointer-to-key" setup. A key that is a ref to a non-keyable type would be invalid anyway...
I've added array types for arrays of common fixed-length types, but for records it gets complicated since it can only really work if all records are the same size. I could maybe expand array support to custom types for specialized applications that have a lot of record types (provided the custom record type is fixed size). But the primary purpose of the format is a way to allow disparate apps the ability to read each others data in a machine and human friendly way without requiring a bunch of extra pieces. A secondary concern is not trying to be everything for everyone, not complicating the format for too small a gain. But that's the trick, isn't it? (where to draw the line)
I've added array types for arrays of common fixed-length types, but for records it gets complicated since it can only really work if all records are the same size. I could maybe expand array support to custom types for specialized applications that have a lot of record types (provided the custom record type is fixed size). But the primary purpose of the format is a way to allow disparate apps the ability to read each others data in a machine and human friendly way without requiring a bunch of extra pieces. A secondary concern is not trying to be everything for everyone, not complicating the format for too small a gain. But that's the trick, isn't it? (where to draw the line)