-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 205
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Checking frame type encoding? #2155
Comments
I believe this is because it allows for fast switch statements in frame processing. It is what makes it affordable to use varints in extension frames. For two byte+ this could be relaxed, but even here, it allows for faster lookups. The situation is different where varints represent countable entities. |
No. That's a reason to require that you encode deterministically, not that you check |
A MAY would have the intended effect. |
Yep. I would be fine with a MAY, i just understood that filing issues rather than PRs was right. |
Issues are probably best if there is a design change involved (as there is here - sort of). PRs are always good. |
Why does this requirement exist? It seems like an odd place to be
picky when we're generally allowing implementations to do unusual
things without requiring checking. To be clear, I'm fine with the
shortest encoding rule, but the must check seems unnecessary
and inconvenient.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: