Closed nishihatapalmer closed 1 year ago
I think most scenarios can be modeled using a lower bound L , an upper bound U, an operator (+ or *) and a step/ratio value.
There is no reason why the ratio or step has to be an integer. You could have:
You just have to be careful to always increment the pattern length by at least one, if the ratio is too small to give a whole number increase (or round up). Also reject ratio/steps less than 1.0.
Suggestion for syntax. Modify the existing --plen
option as follows:
--plen L U [op val]
where op value default to * 2.0
if not specified.
If you said --plen 32 16384
it would give you pattern lengths between 32 and 16384 inclusive, using powers of two.
If you specify the [op and val], you could say:
--plen 2 64 + 4
- all lengths from 2 to max 64 in steps of 4.
--plen 2 256 * 1.75
- all lengths from 2 to 256 going up in a ratio of 1.75 from the last pattern len (rounded up).
closed by PR #56
We currently have several options to control pattern length. These are the current options:
--plen
lets you limit searches in the predefined range 2-4096 to be between two values. sometimes useful.--short
limits searches to predefined lengths 2-32--vshort
limits searches to predefined lengths 1-16I often want to search for different kinds of length. For example: