> > I don't understand what you are proposing here? Are you saying that the > spec would just hard code the number of elements? I think having it > configurable is desirable
Yes, just hard-code. I agree it might be desirable but if we do make it configurable, then we need to make sure the reference implementations support this, and we have test data to verify cross-compatibility. On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 1:45 PM Andrew Lamb <[email protected]> wrote: > > There was some desire to have this configurable, but I wonder if > we should postpone configurability for the sake of simplicity and reducing > the integration testing surface area. > > I don't understand what you are proposing here? Are you saying that the > spec would just hard code the number of elements? I think having it > configurable is desirable > > > Thank again Prateek for all your work here. > > > 100% -- thank you Prateek > > On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 2:44 PM Micah Kornfield <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > In reviewing the C++ implementation for ALP there are two things that > stood > > out in terms of testing that could impact the spec. > > > > 1. Currently vector size is hard-coded in the C++ implementation to 1024 > > elements. There was some desire to have this configurable, but I wonder > if > > we should postpone configurability for the sake of simplicity and > reducing > > the integration testing surface area. > > > > 2. C++ is doing a fair bit of unsigned math. I haven't done a deep dive > > to understand the implications for how Java handles math, but we need to > > make sure Java is capable of handling extreme cases properly. > > > > Other than that I think it seems to be close to addressing implementation > > issues and spec wording. I'm looking forward to seeing this land. > > > > Thank again Prateek for all your work here. > > > > Cheers, > > Micah > > >
