From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Thu Jun 19 21:56:43 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h5JJuhhw023153 for sc22wg5-domo; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:56:43 +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 math.jpl.nasa.gov (math.jpl.nasa.gov [137.79.7.57]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h5JJuYEc023148 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:56:38 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from vsnyder@math.jpl.nasa.gov) Received: from math.jpl.nasa.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by math.jpl.nasa.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5JJuTJe009002 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 12:56:29 -0700 Received: from math.jpl.nasa.gov (vsnyder@localhost) by math.jpl.nasa.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h5JJuTf3008998 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 12:56:29 -0700 Message-Id: <200306191956.h5JJuTf3008998@math.jpl.nasa.gov> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 Reply-to: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov From: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: Modules TR -- revision of 03-123 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 12:56:28 -0700 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk I haven't gotten any convincing arguments against what I proposed at the beginning of the week, so my revision will: 1. Stick with host association, 2. Move the keyword that distinguishes the interface for a procedure with a separate body from the interface block to the interface body, 3. Get rid of the IMPLEMENTATION ... END IMPLEMENTATION brackets, in favor of a word in the of a procedure header, and 4. Use SEPARATE both in the interface body and procedure definition. I will include notes to WG5 to explain the rationale for SEPARATE. These can become notes in the standard if we think it necessary. I don't like the IMPLEMENTATION ... END IMPLEMENTATION brackets. I don't remember why or how we got talked into it at meeting 163. I fail to see any good it does that is not done by simply putting a word into the . Maybe Kurt or Jeanne remembers; they were in the Modules subgroup at meeting 163. So far, only Richard has tried to convince me to keep IMPLEMENTATION ... END IMPLEMENTATION instead of putting a word in the . His arguments didn't convince me. They were based on the problems we had with BIND(C), which arose precisely because we ***DID NOT*** put it in the . I like the idea of a word in the , especially if it's the same word, such as SEPARATE, in both the interface declaration and body definition, because of its simplicity. -- Van Snyder | What fraction of Americans believe Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov | Wrestling is real and NASA is fake? Any alleged opinions are my own and have not been approved or disapproved by JPL, CalTech, NASA, Sean O'Keefe, George Bush, the Pope, or anybody else.