----- "Mark Goodwin" <goodwinos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Looks like a decent well thought out proposal. I'm just wondering
> whether you've captured all the scenarios that might break by the
> introduction of non-leaf nodes that have a pmID?
>
> Since we'll be introducing a pmns syntax change for the new
> dynamic non-leaf nodes, do we know of any scripts that interpret
> the ascii pmns syntax directly,
I can't think of any FWIW.
> or apps that will not be expecting '*' from pmIDStr()?
That'd well be worth an audit.
> And having a 'pad' field in the middle of a structure seems kind
> of funky, but I can see the reasoning for wanting it there. Maybe
> just use up the two existing pad bits and call it 'flags'? (with
> room for three more flag values in the future, one of which could
> be to flag an extended range of domain values).
Hmm, I'd be more inclined to extend "domain" now - we've used up
more than half the available domain numbers already, so this seems
like the most useful way to use that bit IMO (256 numbers looks a
tad small to me, nowadays, whereas 512 would buy alot of headroom).
cheers.
--
Nathan
|