On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 02:55, Geoff Hutchison wrote: > I do think it makes sense to have a bit field. > I can imagine that some XML documents might want > combined bits > Yes, some of the current flags could be in a lookup, but > some (i.e. FLAG_CAPITAL) are clearly a bitfield.
I wasn't meaning to suggest a lookup table in the sense of "coding n flags in log(n) bits". I meant a table of *combinations* of flags which are compatible. This can still result in a moderate saving in bits, without losing much flexibility at all. Even FLAG_CAPITAL may not make sense in some contexts, such as for an email address or a META date. Of course, the "lookup table" approach can (in principle) degenerate to a collection of pure bit fields if *all* combinations are considered meaningful. That way it provides the most generality for a given number of bits (albeit at the expense of a huge table if the number of bits is large). Cheers, Lachlan -- Lachlan Andrew Phone: +613 8344-3816 Fax: +613 8344-6678 Dept of Electrical and Electronic Engg CRICOS Provider Code University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010 AUSTRALIA 00116K ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ htdig-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/htdig-dev
