2009/5/13 Dave Cridland <[email protected]>: > > Now, what Jiří is saying is that in the examples, we're illustrating what > appears to be the method described in 5.2, but giving it the behaviour of an > implementation using the method described in 5.3, whereas using a "pure" > sequence value is simpler to understand. >
Thanks, that's exactly what I meant. > Still, as long as not *all* examples show simple integer > sequences, I think it might benefit some examples. (Perhaps Example 3, for > instance). > Yeah, I was proposing way back including one example on integer versions and one on simple "modified/unmodified" checking with hash. That would illustrate pure sequential roster versions well, while still showing other possibilities are to be expected.
