I suspect we'll both remain biased towards each of #1 and #3. Thankfully, in either case the marginal difference is small and both #1 and #3 are substantially better than #2. -=R On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote: > On 21 November 2013 14:32, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > > #1 and #3 are very similar. #1 arguably has some small marginal benefits > > over #3 (as I've been attempting to point out, if poorly :) ), the most > > important of which is that it is already implemented. > > I see other advantages for #3. The fact is that you need to implement > it anyway (since comma-concatenation is still valid), and that it > doesn't require additional code in the decoder seem like actual > advantages, despite the risks. >
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2013 22:59:58 UTC