On 11 Feb 2011, at 03:53, "Matt W. Benjamin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> yes. at this point, an rpc-l primitive and corresponding rxgen support seem > like something we would need to enable manageable and consistent elaboration > of different union types, if I at all understand the issues. I'm happy to > make xcb conformant with this, for example. I am not interested in seeing > this wheel invented several times. Coming at this from a slightly different angle, I think we have an immediate need for a new address primitive. We can create, and implement, one relatively easily. I don't see doing so as reinventing the wheel. Separately, I agree that we need a new method of encoding unions on the wire. However, I think this is going to require more standardisation and implementation work. I'm definitely interested in seeing that work done, but I don't think we should delay moving forward with addresses on waiting for that to happen. Cheers, Simon.
