NAND review

[Jonathan Larmour]

Simon Kallweit wrote:
> Well these are my first thoughts on the prereleased code. I hope more 
> people take a look at it and we can have a discussion and soon decide 
> which NAND framework we're going to use.

Just to clarify something here, I don't think it's a case of this one or 
that one. Provided someone is prepared to put in the effort, it is 
possible to have a mix of both, with the best aspects of both. It seems 
unlikely to me that one of them will be superior to the other in every way.

Like you, I'm also concerned about some aspects of Ross's use of 
partitioning (and have emailed some details privately to him about that). 
But I'm also concerned about possibly having too much layering in Rutger's 
version for small simple implementations. I guess we'll wait for Ross to 
reply with more detail on his rationale for the differences to Rutger's.

Jifl
-- 
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine