* Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-07 16:00]: > Would that mean that _secure, -secure, ~secure, +secure, > !secure, and so on are all distinct private keys? I'm not sure > that's advantageous; picking a single way of denotating privacy > would seem less confusing.
* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-07 15:30]: > --- Aristotle Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A full `X-` would be a bit heavy, visually. How about > > requring punctuation as the first character? > > Such as a colon or dash and run the risk of breaking YAML > parsers? OK, pick a single character then. I’m not particularly invested in the idea of it being any punctuation at all. Requiring underscore specifically, say, or something else if you like something else better, would work for me just fine. > Plus, but just making it 'X-', it's easy to sort, user supplied > keys are at the bottom and it's simple to extract those keys. > However, at the end of the day, it's Schwern you'll have to > convince. He's quite adamant about upper-case characters. Yeah, because his writing system affords that sort of typographic distinction and does so without trouble. But it’s not the only one, and you don’t even have to go very far to run into all sorts of entertaining surprises: what happens when the uppercase form of i is not I but İ, and the lowercase of I not i but ı? (Turkish locale.) I suggest picking a specific set of characters, specifying that keys consisting entirely of this set of characters are reserved. I’d also suggest denoting private-use keys with initial punctuation (be that a particular character if you prefer if not any from a set of them as I proposed), declaring keys violating both rules to be a parse error. Hey, what can I say? I’m a Perl programmer. I like sigils. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
