[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [rohc] FN let statements and TCP packet formats (was: Updated FN Draft - Appendix A)
Folks,
Personally, I liked the new proposal from Robert, that made
much more sense to me than the let. Further, I do not understand
the concern Ghyslain expressed about the new proposal, i.e. I
do not see what would be wrong with it.
Anyway, it seems like I am the only one disagreeing with the
let statement, and I will not continue to argue if there is
consensus among the others that I am just a disturber in this
matter (as seems to be Ghyslain's opinion). I now leave it up
to you to decide whether to address my concern or not, in any
case I will at least be happy with 95% of the FN.
/L-E
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pelle at cdt.luth.se [mailto:pelle at cdt.luth.se]
> Sent: den 7 april 2005 22:23
> To: Finking, Robert
> Cc: 'Carsten Bormann'; rohc at ietf.org; Kristofer Sandlund; Lars-Erik
> Jonsson (LU/EAB)
> Subject: RE: [rohc] FN let statements and TCP packet formats (was:
> Updated FN Draft - Appendix A)
>
>
> > > I still don't understand what we are trying to achieve here.
> >
> > We're trying to either make it easier for non
> mathematicians to understand or
> > else to prove that doing so breaks the packet formats.
>
> I don't understand either what we're trying to solve... I
> think that the let
> statement works well as it is, and if there is a risk that
> "non-mathematicians"
> won't understand it then it's simply to make sure that's it's
> properly defined
> in FN. This is becoming to close to become a matter of
> personal taste I feel.
>
> > >
> > > I have no problem leaving out the "when" (the parentheses
> did help
> > > syntax analysis; I don't think really bad things happen
> if you leave
> > > them out).
> >
> > I think we want to see an explicitly "if" or "when" or
> something to make the
> > non-binding conditionals obvious.
>
> Now, this is where I might be shooting myself in the foot
> (laf laf) - I thought
> that these conditionals where binding, if not simply because
> they need to be
> reversible for the statement to be both valid for compression and
> decompression? It seems to me that there would be something
> missing if using
> a "if" the "intuitive" way - we'd have to redefine it to
> become equivalent to
> today's "let". What's the point?
>
> Please, let's have the "let" rest in peace (or fix its
> definition so that
> anyone can understand it) and let us focus on reviewing the
> packet formats and
> actual compression...
>
> /Ghyslain
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rohc mailing list
> > Rohc at ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
> >
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
Rohc at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc