From Wclodius@aol.com Thu Jan 25 10:22:45 1996 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA18326 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 10:22:41 +0100 From: Wclodius@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15020; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 04:22:04 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 04:22:04 -0500 Message-ID: <960125011553_126540751@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: david@imagine1.com, sc22wg5-coco@ncsa.uiuc.edu cc: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: Straw vote: 16 item CoCo definition David: I vote yes with the following comments. 1. I suspect that X3J3 will want more capability than this in the long run, but realize it is better to start simple with a strong foundation and latter add what is necessary, rather than build a complicated structure that requires patching later. 2. Did you also want a ? INCLUDE char-literal-constant conditional compilation directive in #2 for consistency?+ 3. #2 r5 I suspect should eventually be relaxed, but with the presen limitations on modules there is no current need for a module to USE another module. 4. #2r7, I would like the CoCo processor to have the user selected optional capability of determining whether there are any if constructs where none of the branches were taken. An empty else branch would satisfy this requirement, as would a user that always supplied correct CoCo directives.