Hi Michael, On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 06:54 -0700, Michael Eager wrote: > On 04/23/14 04:46, Mark Wielaard wrote: > >> An alternate might be to include a location list entry for the range > >> where the object is not available and have that contain a zero-length > >> location list. That would be non-standard, but I think that any > >> consumer would reasonable interpret this as location not available. > > > > That could work. It just needs a bit more work on the producer side to > > know whether using a default location entry plus filling in "the > > gaps" (and start and end range) results in a smaller location list. > > Could that be made into "standard behavior" and recommended as best > > practice when using a default location entries? > > The best practice is to use the default location list entry as it was > intended and as documented.
I don't think that is a very useful way to document the best practice. If it was perfectly clear what the intention of the producer and interpretation of the consumer was when using a default location list entry then we wouldn't be having this conversation :) I do like you suggestion to make the producer be able to provide complete range information for the location list that uses a default entry and would be happy to work on wording a proposal that would make that into something standard. It would also be good to have some examples of location lists using default entries that clearly convey the intention of the producer and how to interpret them by the consumer. Thanks, Mark _______________________________________________ Dwarf-Discuss mailing list Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
