-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > And the thing is, you keep saying that quoting the strings or any other way of > typing the fields is so complex, but you have yet to say why this is so. Sure, > if you quote strings you have to escape the quote char, but we currently have > to escape newline somehow, so what is the big deal? And there have even been > alternative suggestions, but a mark before numbers and booleans to mark they > are values, or put one char which marks the type beofre the value, but you > have > rejected them all.
Or my weak-types proposal. > Yes, but it is not a black art. If something is bad, then there is a reason > why. Can you say under what circumstances having quoted strings makes the > protocol less beautiful and less powerful? Seriously! I've shown examples of the appearance of a weak-typed protocol. It looks virtually indistinguishable from an untyped one. In fact, code can treat it as a "string only" system and do lazy parsing as it does now. But at the same time apps that don't want to memorize FNP don't have to. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE5IC4jpXyM95IyRhURAqk5AJ9fDW2kZkifxYEu+O7KCg//XOYRLACfYMQ5 N84JFgMCetJEU0TMXAJPJeM= =Yojh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
