[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (* reorder ...) comments
-----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-----
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Carl M. Ellison cme@cybercash.com http://www.clark.net/pub/cme |
|CyberCash, Inc. http://www.cybercash.com/ |
|207 Grindall Street PGP 2.6.2: 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 |
|Baltimore MD 21230-4103 T:(410) 727-4288 F:(410)727-4293 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
References: