Jason (>):
> It makes sense to me to go with option 1; you get what you ask for. It also
> makes sense to make to not use magical implied numbers, such as negatives,
> to accomplish things that either ranges or whatever star can accomplish.
Aye, agreement. There's a whole lot of consensus already.
Ok, so 0 returns the empty list and -1 violates the signature? In PIR
can we have such signatures that put a constraint on the range of
values for a given parameter?
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Carl Mäsak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jason (>):
>> It makes sense to me to go with option 1; you
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Chris Davaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, so 0 returns the empty list and -1 violates the signature? In PIR
> can we have such signatures that put a constraint on the range of
> values for a given parameter?
Maybe this has already been proposed and rejected, bu
