Core lexical syntax
Lassi Kortela
(25 Sep 2019 10:15 UTC)
|
||
Re: Core lexical syntax
John Cowan
(25 Sep 2019 14:09 UTC)
|
||
Machines vs humans
Lassi Kortela
(25 Sep 2019 14:25 UTC)
|
||
Re: Core lexical syntax
Alaric Snell-Pym
(25 Sep 2019 15:44 UTC)
|
||
Re: Core lexical syntax
John Cowan
(25 Sep 2019 14:13 UTC)
|
||
Re: Core lexical syntax
John Cowan
(25 Sep 2019 19:18 UTC)
|
||
Mechanism vs policy
Lassi Kortela
(25 Sep 2019 19:58 UTC)
|
||
Re: Mechanism vs policy
Arthur A. Gleckler
(25 Sep 2019 21:17 UTC)
|
||
Re: Mechanism vs policy
Lassi Kortela
(26 Sep 2019 07:40 UTC)
|
||
Re: Mechanism vs policy
John Cowan
(25 Sep 2019 22:25 UTC)
|
||
Re: Mechanism vs policy
Arthur A. Gleckler
(26 Sep 2019 01:34 UTC)
|
||
Limits, symbols and bytevectors, ASN.1 branding
Lassi Kortela
(26 Sep 2019 08:23 UTC)
|
||
Re: Limits, symbols and bytevectors, ASN.1 branding
Alaric Snell-Pym
(26 Sep 2019 08:56 UTC)
|
||
Re: Limits, symbols and bytevectors, ASN.1 branding
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 02:38 UTC)
|
||
ASN.1 branding
Lassi Kortela
(27 Sep 2019 14:56 UTC)
|
||
Re: ASN.1 branding
Alaric Snell-Pym
(27 Sep 2019 15:24 UTC)
|
||
Re: ASN.1 branding
Lassi Kortela
(27 Sep 2019 18:54 UTC)
|
||
Re: Limits, symbols and bytevectors, ASN.1 branding
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 01:57 UTC)
|
||
Re: Limits, symbols and bytevectors, ASN.1 branding
Lassi Kortela
(27 Sep 2019 16:24 UTC)
|
||
Re: Limits, symbols and bytevectors, ASN.1 branding
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 17:37 UTC)
|
||
Re: Limits, symbols and bytevectors, ASN.1 branding
Lassi Kortela
(27 Sep 2019 18:28 UTC)
|
||
Re: Limits, symbols and bytevectors, ASN.1 branding
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 18:39 UTC)
|
||
Re: Limits, symbols and bytevectors, ASN.1 branding
Lassi Kortela
(27 Sep 2019 18:46 UTC)
|
||
Re: Limits, symbols and bytevectors, ASN.1 branding
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 21:19 UTC)
|
||
Re: Mechanism vs policy
Alaric Snell-Pym
(26 Sep 2019 08:45 UTC)
|
||
Implementation limits Lassi Kortela (26 Sep 2019 08:57 UTC)
|
||
Re: Implementation limits
Alaric Snell-Pym
(26 Sep 2019 09:09 UTC)
|
||
Re: Implementation limits
Lassi Kortela
(26 Sep 2019 09:51 UTC)
|
||
Meaning of the word "format"
Lassi Kortela
(26 Sep 2019 10:31 UTC)
|
||
Stacking it all up
Lassi Kortela
(26 Sep 2019 11:05 UTC)
|
||
Brief spec-writing exercise
Lassi Kortela
(26 Sep 2019 11:46 UTC)
|
||
Re: Brief spec-writing exercise
John Cowan
(26 Sep 2019 15:45 UTC)
|
||
Standards vs specifications
Lassi Kortela
(26 Sep 2019 21:24 UTC)
|
||
Re: Standards vs specifications
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 04:29 UTC)
|
||
Re: Standards vs specifications
Lassi Kortela
(27 Sep 2019 13:47 UTC)
|
||
Re: Standards vs specifications
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 14:53 UTC)
|
||
Re: Meaning of the word "format"
John Cowan
(26 Sep 2019 20:59 UTC)
|
||
Re: Meaning of the word "format"
Lassi Kortela
(26 Sep 2019 21:09 UTC)
|
||
Re: Meaning of the word "format"
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 02:44 UTC)
|
||
Length bytes and lookahead in ASN.1
Lassi Kortela
(27 Sep 2019 13:58 UTC)
|
||
Re: Length bytes and lookahead in ASN.1
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 14:22 UTC)
|
||
Re: Length bytes and lookahead in ASN.1
Alaric Snell-Pym
(27 Sep 2019 15:02 UTC)
|
||
Re: Length bytes and lookahead in ASN.1
hga@xxxxxx
(27 Sep 2019 15:26 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Fwd: Length bytes and lookahead in ASN.1
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 16:40 UTC)
|
||
Re: Fwd: Length bytes and lookahead in ASN.1
Alaric Snell-Pym
(27 Sep 2019 16:51 UTC)
|
||
Re: Fwd: Length bytes and lookahead in ASN.1
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 17:18 UTC)
|
||
Length bytes and lookahead in ASN.1
hga@xxxxxx
(27 Sep 2019 16:58 UTC)
|
||
Re: Length bytes and lookahead in ASN.1
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 17:21 UTC)
|
||
Re: Mechanism vs policy
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 03:52 UTC)
|
||
Re: Core lexical syntax
Alaric Snell-Pym
(26 Sep 2019 08:36 UTC)
|
> I think that such limits are useful, but are implementation limits, but > not limits to the spec. > > For instance, there's no reason why a user with a big enough storage > device can't have a string literal that's several terabytes long, if > they want to. The format spec should allow that; it should be a valid > instance of the format. > > However, it's also perfectly valid for an implementation to say "Hey, I > can't read strings more than 256 bytes big and I flat out ignore floats > and I only have 4KiB of RAM to store anything, because I'm running on a > 16-bit embedded controller". Once again we agree but Alaric phrased it better than I did :) John already clarified elsewhere in the thread that he agrees there should be no hard limits, just cautionary notes about limits likely to be had in many implementations. So we all agree on the format. Personally, I find most advisory notes in specifications to be a bit of a cargo-cult thing. The first thing is they are often speculation, not tied to actual implementations (notes on actual existing stuff are useful). Second, they tend to be tied to the decade they are written in. We would now caution about 32-bit values; a decade from now we might perhaps caution about 64-bit values. None of those cautions would be revelatory to readers since they are standard fare for the decade they are written in. Thirdly, implementations are written for a particular language and hardware, so the implementor is going to have the numerical limits that are easiest in that environment; there is no advice we can give in the spec that changes that. Saying "please implement 64-bit values", for example, is not useful since people smart enough to implement a format have already made their mind about what kind of integer range they want and we can't give them substantial extra information in a spec to make that decision. Similarly, someone interfacing to a microcontroller knows the data range of that hardware and makes decisions based on that. I don't think there is any blanket advice that is useful. Reading about advisory limits on a general-purpose format, I would think "given that warnings like this are usually spurious, is there something I'm missing?". So it just adds more text and cognitive load. (In all fairness, the same could be said for much of the email I send.)