Thread Links			Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Re: Tetrits and "stickiness"

To: stds-1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Tetrits and "stickiness"
From: Michel Hack <hack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:51:34 -0400
Delivered-to: mhonarc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=STDS-1788>, <mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG?body=INFO%20STDS-1788>
List-owner: <mailto:STDS-1788-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
List-subscribe: <mailto:STDS-1788-subscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:STDS-1788-unsubscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sender: stds-1788@xxxxxxxx

Baker Kearfott wrote:
> Wasn't Dan's suggestion to carry both a sticky and
> non-sticky part, with an extra bit, so no mode would
> be required?

Yes -- but this discussion was prompted by your question of whether
we needed all of this, and Ian and Nate replying "no, we only need
one kind of decoration".

Michel.
---Sent: 2010-04-15 21:54:20 UTC

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Tetrits and "stickiness"
  - From: Ralph Baker Kearfott

Prev by Date: Re: Tetrits and "stickiness"
Next by Date: Re: Tetrits and "stickiness"
Previous by thread: Re: Tetrits and "stickiness"
Next by thread: Re: Tetrits and "stickiness"
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread