On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 11:51:16AM +0000, Gerrit Renker wrote:
>
> | 2) Change before/after such that before(x, x+2^31) == !before(x+2^31, x).
> This is what the new definition does: in the old definition we always have
> that
> before(x, x+2^31) == before(x+2^31, x).
Sorry but the new definition has exactly the same problem since
before(x, x+2^31) == before(x+2^31, x) == 0
While the old definition had
before(x, x+2^31) == before(x+2^31, x) == 1
Both are equally bad. It's only unambiguous if
before(x, x+2^31) == !before(x+2^31, x) == 0
or
before(x, x+2^31) == !before(x+2^31, x) == 1
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
