> One single IP packet is all you can parse. I worked for an undisclosed company which manufactures h/w for ISPs (4- and 8-unit boxes you mount on a rack in a datacenter). Essentially, big-big routers. So, I had the pleasure of writing software that parses IP _protocol_, and let me tell you: you have no idea what you just wrote.
But, like I wrote earlier: you don't understand the distinction between languages and words. And in general, are just being stubborn and rude because you are trying to prove a point to someone you don't like, but, in reality, you just look more and more ridiculous. On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 12:51 AM Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 at 08:48, Left Right <olegsivo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > You can't validate an IP packet without having all of it. Your notion > > > of "streaming" is nonsensical. > > > > Whoa, whoa, hold your horses! "nonsensical" needs a little bit of > > justification :) > > > > It seems you don't understand the difference between words and > > languages! In my examples, IP _protocol_ is the language, sequences of > > IP packets are the words in the language. A language is amenable to > > streaming if the words of the language are repetition of sequences of > > symbols of the alphabet of fixed length. This is, essentially, like > > saying that the words themselves are regular. > > One single IP packet is all you can parse. You're playing shenanigans > with words the way Humpty Dumpty does. IP packets are not sequences, > they are individuals. > > ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
