From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Thu Apr 29 20:16:38 2004 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) id i3TIGcON054575 for sc22wg5-domo; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:16:38 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id i3TIGAE7054567 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:16:25 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dnagle@erols.com) Received: from 66-44-59-154.s408.tnt3.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com ([66.44.59.154]) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 1BJG5E-000066-00 for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:16:36 -0400 From: Dan Nagle To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (j3.2004) (SC22WG5.3109) Future of coco Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:11:23 -0400 Organization: Purple Sage Computing Solutions, Inc. Message-ID: References: <200404291318.i3TDInbL048956@dkuug.dk> <200404291707.i3TH7oW0053371@dkuug.dk> In-Reply-To: <200404291707.i3TH7oW0053371@dkuug.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: 0 () Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dkuug.dk id i3TIGSE7054568 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk Hello, On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:06:33 -0700, Richard Maine wrote: >I hope you didn't expect people to have time to give these questions any >serious thought between now and the meeting. I sure don't. :-( Some >of the Europeans might plausibly have already left. No, this is just food for thought between now and whenever the discussion turn this way at 168. Indeed, the departure of "some of the Europeans" is why a completed paper is not in the WG5 archive. >Just one comment off the top of my head. I didn't have to spend time >thinking about this one because it is an old knee-jerk of mine. > >--On Thursday, April 29, 2004 9:13 AM -0400 Dan Nagle >wrote: > >> Should the symbol control mechanisms (ifdef, ifndef, undefine) >> be supported? >We've got the equivalent of "implicit none" by default in coco (Don't >we? I'll confess that I don't keep up on it very well.) That >saves us from a large class of typos, but it would be pretty much >defeated by ifdef and friends. Yes, coco demands a definition before a use in any context (other than ifdef/ifndef) otherwise a fatal error occurs. There's no way to change that behavior, either. ;-) (Well, you could ask me to add something, but I'm not very likely to consider that particular request to be of high importance. Or you can download the GPLed code and change it yourself if you consider the request to be of high importance.) -- Cheers! Dan Nagle Purple Sage Computing Solutions, Inc.