Re: [Anima-signaling] CDDL mistake

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 09/12/2016 04:56, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     >> Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     >> > I've just realised that I have a mistake in my GRASP code
>     >> > concerning the following CDDL:
>     >>
>     >> So, basically, you are replacing a set with an enum.
>     >> I don't see a problem for the current three flags.
>     >>
>     >> > On balance I think this is better (and certainly easier to implement).
>     >> > There doesn't seem to be any advantage in using bit positions.
>     >>
>     >> What happens if we need an additional flag?
>     >> Bit positions had the advantage that you understand the things you
>     >> understand
>     >> and ignore the rest.
> 
>     > I noticed the problem while adding code for the (proposed) new
>     > F_NEG_DRY flag,
> 
> I think upon reflection, that I'd rather the bit definition.

Yes, I was mulling it over and I reached the same conclusion. I think I
need to to tweak the text a bit to avoid other implementers making the same
mistake that I did. Thus:

<section title="Objective flags">

<t>An objective may be relevant for discovery only, for discovery and negotiation, or
for discovery and synchronization. This is expressed in the objective by logical flags:</t>
<t><figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
  objective-flags = uint .bits objective-flag
  objective-flag = &(
  F_DISC: 0    ; valid for discovery
  F_NEG: 1     ; valid for negotiation
  F_SYNCH: 2   ; valid for synchronization
  F_NEG_DRY: 3 ; negotiation is dry-run
  )
  ]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>Note that for a given negotiation session, an objective must be either used for negotiation, or for
dry-run negotiation. Mixing the two modes in a single negotiation is not possible.</t>
</section>

Does this work?

Now I will mend my Python code.

    Brian