[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Comments on SPKI draft of 25 March 1997

Carl Ellison wrote:
> At 01:33 PM 3/29/97 EST, Ron Rivest wrote:
> >I suggest that the BNF have the five types as above, but that the actual
> >syntax use the same object type for the last three, as SDSI does:
> >	( ref <key-or-key-hash> name ) 			for <simple-name>
> >	( ref <key-or-key-hash> name1 name2 ... ) 	for <fq-name>
> >	( ref name1 name2 ... )				for <relative-name>
> >and that the implementation check for the appropriate number and type of
> >arguments (e.g. that there is a real key-or-key-hash when necessary, etc.)
> I'd like to hear from other developers on this issue.  I agree with the need 
> for these three, but I prefer having different object types for them, so 
> that the determination of kind of object doesn't require a look ahead.

Absolutely - it makes for clearer, simpler code, and is more bug-resistent.



Ben Laurie                Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435  Email: ben@algroup.co.uk
Freelance Consultant and  Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472
Technical Director        URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
A.L. Digital Ltd,         Apache Group member (http://www.apache.org)
London, England.          Apache-SSL author