Re: Re-work of op-code patterns

On 27 January 2014 08:43, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:
> With the proposed change what would 0b1000000 signal?

An indexed header field, the first one.

> If we are going to add a new opcode, I'd prefer to see the literal header
> encodes both start with the same symbol:

The problem with your proposal is that it takes a rare condition
(Encoding context change) and assigns a shorter opcode to it.  The
cost is that header indexes greater than 30 will take an extra byte.
If you really want this, run the numbers and let us know what it
costs.

Received on Monday, 27 January 2014 17:39:06 UTC