SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    RE: iSCSI - re-phrase of 4.1



    Randy,
    
    I'm not young and I have never seen a signed hex constant either. I don't
    see any need to use signed hex constants. I also agree with Julian on
    leading zeros for hex (and base 64). They should be allowed.
    
    Pat
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Randy Jennings [mailto:randyj@data-transit.com]
    Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 7:58 PM
    To: iSCSI; Luben Tuikov
    Subject: RE: iSCSI - re-phrase of 4.1
    
    
    Comments in text
    
    > Also why do we need to _restrict_ as to the sign of
    > a hex constant. I'm sure that sooner or later it will
    > have its applications. If a value cannot be negative
    > and a node sent it as negative then the peer will
    > reply with Reject or appropriately.
    Granted, I am a young engineer, but I have never seen a signed hex constant.
    I've always seen decimal when signed.  In my (vast :-> ) experience, hex is
    always used to represent straight bits.  Period.  You have enough zeros for
    place holders for the bits and that is all you ever have.  If it happens to
    translate into a numeric value, that is ducky, but not necessary.
    
    > Thus,
    > hex const: 0[xX][1-9A-Fa-f]+[0-9A-Fa-f]*
    In any case, with this regex, 0x0 is no longer valid.  If you persist in not
    wanting leading zeros, try:
    hex const: 0[xX](([1-9A-Fa-f][0-9A-Fa-f]*)|0)
                     ^                       ^
    I do not know if these are needed, but they should not hurt
    
    I also removed the + because the * after the second term takes care of it.
    
    Sincerely,
    Randy
    Data Transit
    


Home

Last updated: Sat May 04 15:18:36 2002
9970 messages in chronological order