Re: The IMAP APPENDLIMIT Extension - version 04

Thanks, Bron.  I am aware of Java's lack of unsigned integers having 
had to work around it before.  (I find it a curious lack although I 
have no idea of the rationale behind it.)  So, yes, I come to agree 
that UINT64_MAX would be a poor choice, never mind an unnecessarily 
large one.  So how about a compromise of, say, UINT48_MAX?

Pete

At 02:18 AM 3/19/2015, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 09:02 AM, Pete Maclean wrote:
> >
> > >1.  APPENDLIMIT value should be UINT32_MAX or UINT64_MAX ?
> >
> > UINT64_MAX
>
>Most of the world is going with half that in new standards, for
>compatibility with languages that offer a signed 64 bit numeric value
>only (aka - java 7 and below).  It makes mapping the values through said
>languages a lot easier, and 63 bits should be enough for anyone (or
>something).
>
>Alternatively, there's 53 bits, which is the maximum that javascript can
>represent:
>
>http://stackoverflow.com/questions/307179/what-is-javascripts-highest-integer-value-that-a-number-can-go-to-without-losin
>
>It's not going to matter in practice, because that's still fricking huge.
>
>Bron.
>
>--
>   Bron Gondwana
>   [email protected]
>
>_______________________________________________
>imapext mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext

_______________________________________________
imapext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext