At 03:35 PM 3/8/2001 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Thursday 08 March 2001 11:43, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > It probably ought to be left undefined, in case we switch implementations
> > later.
>
>Er, except, aren't you (we) supposed to be defining the implementation?
>I thought the hand-waving period was over, and we're doing specifications.
>If there's something bogus in there, then we re-specify, not continually
>defer.
We, definitely we. And the reason for the handwaving is, at this point, I'm
not sure exactly what we're going to do, but I know generally enough to
define the data structures. Plus it's always possible that in six months
someone'll come along and tell us we're being silly, and if we did it X way
we'd get a Y% performance boost. (Yeah, I'm trying to be specific about
generalities without overspecifying. It's a wonder my head's not exploded
yet... :)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
