[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [xacml] Re: [batch #2] counter propoposal to 3-04
exactly. this is why i suggest that we select something that is not associated with any given vendor. my gut feeling is that the combiners will be relatively simple and that c syntax should be sufficient. b On Fri, 2002-04-05 at 07:40, Ken Yagen wrote: > The fact that it is pseudocode not executable code means that we should not > require it be possible to throw it in a JVM and compile it. I believe the > proposal was just to provide a standard syntax that most people are familiar > with explain the algorithms. You don't need a syntax to write pseudocode, > but since this is a collaborative process, it is beneficial to be > consistent.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC