[This message was posted by Rolf Andersson of Pantor Engineering <[email protected]> to the "FAST Protocol" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/46. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/abd618fb - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
Once again you manage to write a post that I don't get. I may be dense but I don't understand what you want. If I just ignore your impoliteness and try to extract the references to me and what I have said and done, I get the following list: > Rolf, I'll address you separately in some detail as you are > involved in creating this charade. You deserve it for taking > time to produce a mess and talk brave about numbers (should > have known better you light speed and ns-level people will > keep chasing the wrong train). I get this, you ask me to read on and you will address me separately. (reading on ...) [snip] > But Rolf, an example, please define the semantics of an "empty" > integer and add the reason why you would even consider adding > all three : a PMAP, template instance and optional attribute > on top of it? Plus you make it nullable and optional and empty > and pmap dependent and hey dynamically imposable. Is this a trick question or are you just trying to be funny at my expense? I don't understand what you want to say. You loose me halfway through the first sentence (at the "and"). I'll take these five lines apart when I get some more time. If I find a plausible interpretation, I will certainly post. In the meantime, I would appreciate if you re-read your own text and if possible try to explain what you are getting at here. Your own deconstruction if the 5 lines may be helpful. [snip] > Once again, why hasn't anyone provided clear rules as tables, a > concise summary of rules rather than a glaringly obvious shady > FAST spec/document? Afraid to do it or do you have an interest > in not doing it? Either or Rolf? "... clear rules as tables ...", point taken. We are working on some docs that are supposed to be more accessible. I believe Dale also has done some work in this area. It would help if you could elaborate on the "glaringly obvious shady FAST spec/document" because I'm uncertain what it is that is "glaringly obvious shady". All, most of it, certain parts? Maybe my confusion can be explained by my limited language skills. I would appreciate if you could elaborate. Specific suggestions for how we could improve and/or complement our docs would be great. [snip] Also, I would like to try again to convince you to be more polite. Please? Best, Rolf [You can unsubscribe from this discussion group by sending a message to mailto:[email protected]] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Financial Information eXchange" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fix-protocol?hl=en.
