Subject: Re: [Isms] documentation style for SBSM: pseudo-code vs text

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 08:48:12 -0700

>>>>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 11:37:00 -0400, "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]> said:

David> I recommend text plus psuedo-code.

So both you and Robert are opting for (a) the original style then it
sounds like.  Paragraph style.

I don't want to do a full paragraph plus psuedo-code, however.  It's
redundant and more work than its worth.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Sparta

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms

---

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 12:35:21 -0400

Hi Wes,

I didn't say that I opted for full paragraph style.

I believe there is some info that needs to be communicated using text,
and some that can be communicated using pseudocode. For expressions, I
prefer the conciseness of psuedocode to the wordiness of text, but
pseudocode cannot specify a MUST, so different portions of the
communications will require different formats. You need to select
whichever is most appropriate to what you are conveying, including a
combination of the two where needed. The pseudocode "session.status =
CLOSED;" needs to be supplemented with some text that indicates this
assignment is REQUIRED for interoperability.

David Harrington
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Wes Hardaker [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 11:48 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: 'Robert Story'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Isms] documentation style for SBSM: pseudo-code vs text

--
Wes Hardaker
Sparta