- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 08:48:27 +0100
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2018-12-12 07:58, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 5:50 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> From looking at the rest of the spec briefly, it looks like we lose some bitwise and shift operators as a result -- is that correct? > > Yeah, and some of those can be synthesized. <<1 can become *2. The > loss doesn't seem particularly bad. The gain (2^22 times more space) > seems like a serious upside. > > That this popular language is driving this decision is the only thing > that bothers me. Yes, it's a popular language, but it's probably the > only one that doesn't have native 64-bit numbers (yet -- > https://tc39.github.io/proposal-bigint/). > > ... In particular as this was one of the reasons to drop the JSON-based approach in the first place... Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2018 07:48:57 UTC