>From Steven Hazel <sah at thalassocracy.org>
>The problem with thinking of keys in terms of function calls is that
>in order to spec it out fully, we'd have to invent a type system. The
>return types on AGL's "functions" weren't specified in his email, but
>they did exist -- the DBR() function, for example, has a return type
>that isn't the same as that of either of the parameters taken by the
>CHK() function.
>
>A more limited approach would save us all the trouble of embedding
>type checkers in our freenet URI parsers.
>
>-S
>
It would be a fairly simple type system, and completly dynamic... you could
probably get away with treating everything internally as a formatted string
and error out when you get invalid syntax ("86400" as the hash for a CHK,
etc...)
--
Benjamin Coates
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
Devl at freenetproject.org
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
