RE: Ted's concerns about wastefulness (Accept-* problem)

At 10:11 31/01/99 +0900, Martin J. Duerst wrote:
[...]
>   (SONY_VGA_MODELXXX) :-
>      (| (& (pix-x=640)
>            (pix-y=280)
>            (color=256))
>         (& (pix-x=1028)
>            (pix-y=1028)
>            (color=256)))
>
>is obviously equivalent to:
>
>   (SONY_VGA_MODELXXX) :-
>      (| (& (pix-x=640)
>            (color=256)
>            (pix-y=280))
>         (& (pix-y=1028)
>            (pix-x=1028)
>            (color=256)))
>
>or
>
>   (SONY_VGA_MODELXXX) :- (| (& (pix-x=640) (color=256) (pix-y=280))
>                             (& (pix-y=1028) (pix-x=1028) (color=256)))
>
>or a lot of other combinations. Can you make sure that all these
>things hash the same?

The short answer is "yes".  Less clear is whether doing so justifies the
added complexity in relation to simple hashing (given that, in many cases,
the hash may be derived from the same source as the text it identifies).

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
([email protected])