Subject: How long is a number [was: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-structured-headers-00.txt]

From: Matthew Kerwin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 18:31:57 +1000

On 4 Nov. 2017 19:21, "Matthew Kerwin" <[email-masked]> wrote:

... but I don't think it's right to call the parsing rule something as
generic as "number".  I wouldn't mind if it was 15 digits with a name of
"common integer" or something, with the view that we might, in future, find
a need to define a 38-digit "large integer" rule, or something like that.

You know what, after all the spam, over the weekend I think I've changed my
mind. I don't think there's a problem with the draft's definition of
"number" as 15 digits. I thought the name was significant (in the way
people would read the spec) but now I'm pretty sure it really is just paint
on the bike shed.

Cheers
-- 
Matthew Kerwin

---

From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 10:23:51 +0000

--------
In message <[email-masked]>
, Matthew Kerwin writes:

>I thought the name was significant (in the way people would read the spec)
>but now I'm pretty sure it really is just paint on the bike shed.

/me saunters away, whistling innocently :-)

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[email-masked]         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.