RE: [RPRWG] Summary of State Table Ad Hoc conclusions:
Thanks David,
Devendra.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David V James [mailto:dvj@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 6:16 PM
> To: Devendra Tripathi; Robert D. Love; 802.17
> Subject: RE: [RPRWG] Summary of State Table Ad Hoc conclusions:
>
>
> Devendra,
>
> On point 2)
> After working a bit more with some state tables, a bit more,
> I now agree that the preferred table format is first-one precedence.
> The "--" character should be used for default match, which catches
> everything that was not explicitly&previously listed.
>
> This would also make it less necessary to invent "pseudo" states,
> which have sometimes been created to simplify a sequence of multiple
> test conditions. The "first-one precedence" makes it much easier
> to have these be a sequence of precedence-evaluated condition within
> one state.
>
> Of course, its possible to follow multiple exclusive conditions
> with a "--" row that is called "illegal", if one truely believes
> the conditions are complete and wants to illustrate that explicitly.
>
> With the previous paragraph observation of flexibility, plus recent
> experience with fair numbers of cases, I now agree with your observation
> of precedence order preferred to exhaustive lists.
>
> Thanks for the insights,
>
> DVJ
>
>
>
> David V. James
> 3180 South Ct
> Palo Alto, CA 94306
> Home: +1.650.494.0926
> +1.650.856.9801
> Cell: +1.650.954.6906
> Fax: +1.360.242.5508
> Base: dvj@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Devendra Tripathi
> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 4:37 PM
> To: Robert D. Love; 802.17
> Subject: RE: [RPRWG] Summary of State Table Ad Hoc conclusions:
>
>
> >
> 1) All state-table expressions shall be valid C-code Boolean expressions.
> 2) Conditions shall be either:
> a) Mutually exclusive (preferred) or
> b) If multiple conditions match, the first one has precedence.
> 3) All state-machine inputs shall be defined, with appropriate technical
> cross reference, at either:
> a) Beginning of the clause (if self contained).
> b) Within clause #3 (if not self contained).
> 4) Any MIB definitions shall have a corresponding state-table definition,
> both of which shall cross-reference the other.
> >
>
> Few comments on this:
>
> Pt. 1. It is defintely a very good idea
> Pt. 2. In conditions with many variables, making exclusive
> consitions makes
> each expression complex, so I suggest we go with (b) by default.
> Pt. 3. Again I would prefer (a) unless we are referring to common variable
> which is relevant to multiple sections.
>
> Regards,
> Devendra Tripathi
> CoVisible Solutions, Inc
> (Accelerating Product Adoption)
> 1055 Page Ave.
> Fremont, Ca 94538
> Tel: (510) 770-3051
> Fax: (510) 770-3056
>
>
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]