Re: [css-syntax] Dropping <number-token> representation, and its effects on <urange> from Tab Atkins Jr. on 2014-11-20 (www-style@w3.org from November 2014)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 08:39:43 -0800
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDC_wXreisHWkCR6n5fzOHP=d-GQbXpt-2-r=DMyJ4aC9A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 5:52 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 2014-11-19 12:28 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> 1. Leave it as it is.  This requires storing the representation on
>> every numeric token, which is a memory cost, but it lets us parse
>> <urange> precisely.  (The cost might not be as bad as all that.  If
>> you only store the representation when it's "non-obvious" (leading +
>> sign, leading 0, scinot) then the memory cost is *most* of the time
>> just a single null pointer per numeric token.  You can regenerate the
>> representation on the fly from "obvious" forms, so a helper function
>> can be used to make representation-retrieval easy when it's
>> necessary.)
>
> I'm ok with this, and I think I prefer it at this point.

Cool.

~TJ

Received on Thursday, 20 November 2014 16:40:34 UTC