Re: [rfa] Clarify remote protocol RLE example

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 15:18:22 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, ukleinek@informatik.uni-freiburg.de,
> 	Jim Blandy <jimb@codesourcery.com>
> 
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 09:01:21PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >  Response @var{data} can be run-length encoded to save space.
> >  Run-length encoding replaces runs of identical characters with the
> >  character @samp{*} followed by a repeat count.
> 
> How about "with an initial character, the character @samp{*}, and a
> repeat count"?  With that, I quite like your version.

How about

 Run-length encoding replaces runs of identical characters with a
 @samp{*} followed by a repeat count.

?

> > This part I simply don't understand.  What does it mean ``should not
> > be used''? what should be done instead? break the string into several
> > smaller ones?
> 
> May not be used (they have special syntactical meaning in the
> protocol).  So you need to stop the RLE string one character earlier,

It strikes me that it would be easier and more clear to say that runs
of 7 and 8 characters should be sent as 6+1 and 6+2, respectively.