Oskar Sandberg <md98-osa at nada.kth.se> wrote: > I tend to agree. Certainly anybody can convert a number smaller then FF > without much effort, and you'll seldom need to do math in you head on > bigger numbers anyway.
Well, there's "not much effort" (hex) and then there's "no effort" (decimal). For example, if I as a person want to compare the number of bytes that I got with the number of bytes I was expecting from the length field. > The code is simply not an issue. hex2bin and bin2hex are like 2 lines in > just about any language. Sure, but dec2bin and bin2dec are already provided in just about any language (again, "not much effort" vs. "no effort"). Of course it's not a big deal either way. I just don't see any particular reason to add this small amount of complication, other than a somewhat dubious consistency. > > some words about uniqueID: hex, dec, oct, alphanum.... you must only > > look if it has a specific value. no operations lke add, lt, gt sub ... > > are made with it. it does not matter what it is. but now it is hex. > > and we've no reason to change it. right, that's what I was saying, for the UniqueId it doesn't matter either way. Because of that, if one really insists on having all numbers in the same base, one may as well change the UniqueId to be decimal instead of changing everything else to be hex. But I'm not proposing to change anything, I'm proposing to leave everything exactly the way it is, i.e. UniqueId hex and everything else decimal. theo _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
