Re: (* reorder ...) comments

[Carl Ellison <cme@cybercash.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 05:24 PM 8/26/97 GMT, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>However, it seemed to me in reading the list some time ago, that the
>consensus was that any mandatory parameters would be positional, and any
>optional parameters would trail with explicit names.  That gives the
>best of both worlds.  Why wasn't that adopted?

There's the problem that we don't have a way to distinguish between an 
S-expression whose object name is a data type (e.g., "key" vs. "hash") and 
one whose object name is a parameter name (e.g., "e", "n", etc. in an RSA 
key definition).


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBNAMjMFQXJENzYr45AQFvKgP+Ju/qE6LrRZ+vmqVUI25KGgjanQCG3Me7
s/B0bY3O2+1QVECJDB0AUYsqXVdpU9eEBkRflYRmEXoseK9C79yjUMp2qoaDusxM
hK5qO2b2fnxG/UTCa5OmxsVqM++wiZfj2dV+iAq5P+NtiiZQhLVMzJCbsNN4RGAK
OlrMF0Pq26k=
=HG1p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---

References:

• Re: (* reorder ...) comments
• From: "William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson@greendragon.com>

---

• Prev by Date: P.S. Re: legal question about certs
• Next by Date: Re: K-of-N subjects
• Prev by thread: Re: (* reorder ...) comments
• Next by thread: Re: (* reorder ...) comments
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread