[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.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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
References: