22 Mar
2007
22 Mar
'07
12:06 p.m.
On March 22, 2007 9:43:21 AM -0600 David Mitchell <mitchell@ucar.edu> wrote:
I just hadn't gotten around to replying yet. I think it looks good. Stomping on the retry value was an accident on my part. Maybe it could be made more explicit by including them in the bit value list? Then it would be more obvious that 128 is the next unused value?
great idea. -frnk