Single value constraint handled as a list

[fzonneveld]

Creates a list for the SingleValueConstraint. Added some extra examples in builtin_types.asn.

[kimgr]

This still has the CLI changes mixed with the single-value constraint stuff. Did your branching go awry?

I think I'll try to extract the constraint commit from this and try to apply it with some style changes.

[fzonneveld]

Sorry, I will have a look again what I have done. Also do some reading
about the branching in github.

Thanks Frank,

On 9 December 2014 at 20:39, Kim Gräsman notifications@github.com wrote:

This still has the CLI changes mixed with the single-value constraint
stuff. Did your branching go awry?

I think I'll try to extract the constraint commit from this and try to
apply it with some style changes.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#14 (comment).

[kimgr]

Usually what I do is keep my master branch a pure mirror of the upstream repo. Then I create a topic branch for each thing I want to do and send pull requests from these branches. When/if a pull request is accepted, I resync master against the upstream repo, and then rebase my local topic branches. Then I can delete topic branches that have been accepted.

[fzonneveld]

Thanks for the explanation, I just reset my master hard to upstream, I
think it worked. If you want another pull request without the CLI stuff, it
would be no problem for me to create it like you suggested.

Thanks Frank,

On 9 December 2014 at 21:09, Kim Gräsman notifications@github.com wrote:

Usually what I do is keep my master branch a pure mirror of the upstream
repo. Then I create a topic branch for each thing I want to do and send
pull requests from these branches. When/if a pull request is accepted, I
resync master against the upstream repo, and then rebase my local topic
branches. Then I can delete topic branches that have been accepted.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#14 (comment).

[kimgr]

OK, I've just started digging into this (sorry it took so long!)

I think this is fundamentally the wrong way to solve the problem -- you seem to be effectively implementing a narrow subset of the UNION syntax in ASN.1 X.680 46.1.

That said, it enables nice translation of simple integer enumerations, so I think I'll add it anyway :-)

I still want to support ASN.1's full constraint syntax (which is extremely complicated), but I can save that for some other rainy day... I won't merge this PR, especially since there are so many other things intermingled, but I'll pick up the good bits and integrate into mainline asn1ate. Thanks for the help!

[kimgr]

A variant on this is now implemented on master. Thanks for the suggestion. Closing.