Works for me. Chad
On 8/22/08 3:39 AM, "Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ्" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Do we really need an extra byte to encode boolean? We can have a type modifier of '1' for false and 2 for 'true' On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 6:05 AM, Bryan Duxbury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, sounds better than way :) > > -Bryan > > On Aug 21, 2008, at 5:28 PM, Chad Walters wrote: > >> >> Would you be happier if, instead of saying a number of bits should be >> reserved, I said that there should be a maximum of four different possible >> modification values, with one of them being a default (such that it could be >> represented in a maximum of 2 bits if a protocol so desired)? >> >> The JSON protocol would clearly ignore the hints. >> >> Chad >> >> >> On 8/21/08 5:23 PM, "Bryan Duxbury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Clearly the protocols and the modification types need to be in sync, >> but saying that a certain number of bits should be reserved is too >> specific. How would that map to the JSON protocol, for instance? >> >> It seems like we've arrived at some consensus. Should we create a new >> issue for making type modifiers and get to work? >> >> -Bryan > > -- --Noble Paul
