[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Section 5.2.3 of latest draft: bis14.
Jon Callas wrote:
>> I am diffing against bis-12 which is the only old version I have here.
>> Another change I notice is that the preferred algorithm signature
>> subpackets in 22.214.171.124, 126.96.36.199 and 188.8.131.52 have their contents changed
>> from a "sequence" of one-octet values to an "array" of one-octet values.
>> However we do not otherwise define "array". Is that word really
>> better than "sequence" here? To me, a sequence of values is a plainer
>> description while an array perhaps connotes a somewhat more complex
>> data structure. Of course in C an array is simply bytes in memory so if
>> that is how it is being read, OK. I'm just worried that an implementor
>> is going to look for a definition of array.
> I'm worried that an implementor is going to look for a definition of
> definition. This is something I worry about with each "clarification" we
> make, that N people think it's better and M people think it's worse.
> This is why I am resistant to clarifications (even though it seems I
> make a lot of them).
> I agree with you that "sequence" is clearer than "array" and given how
> much of the text is either yours or mine, it's no wonder it used to say
> "sequence." I'm more than happy to change it back.
> Let me meditate upon it for a bit.
Wasn't the point here that some things were called a "sequence" and some
an "array", and they should all be called the same thing?
FWIW, I find sequence less clear than array. My maths background makes
me suspect that there's some extra subtlety that I'm missing when I see
However, I'm more concerned about the inconsistency, which is definitely