From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Fri Jun 20 13:41:19 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h5KBfJCk027662 for sc22wg5-domo; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:41:19 +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 mx1.liv.ac.uk (mx1.liv.ac.uk [138.253.100.179]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h5KBf9Ec027657 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:41:14 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from j.l.schonfelder@liverpool.ac.uk) Received: from mailhub3.liv.ac.uk ([138.253.100.83]) by mx1.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19TKGN-0004hO-UQ for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:41:03 +0100 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=mailhub3.liv.ac.uk) by mailhub3.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19TKGN-0001ir-S9 for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:41:03 +0100 Received: from vp135020.liv.ac.uk ([138.253.135.20] helo=jls-rm-home.liv.ac.uk) by mailhub3.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19TKGN-0001io-Nb for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:41:03 +0100 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:41:01 +0100 From: "J.L.Schonfelder" To: WG5 Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2793) Modules TR Message-ID: <3579236.1056112861@jls-rm-home.liv.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <200306200842.h5K8gn1N026500@dkuug.dk> References: <200306200842.h5K8gn1N026500@dkuug.dk> Originator-Info: login-id=jls; server=pop1.liv.ac.uk X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Scanner: exiscan for exim4 (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/) *19TKGN-0004hO-UQ*jeiYG.qNamY* Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk --On 20 June 2003 9:47 +0100 John Reid wrote: > > I understand why Lawrie wants to redeclare things in submodules, but we > don't allow this in the case of USE or host association, to which the > same arguments that Lawrie is advancing could be applied. > Not to host association where one of the key points is that redeclaration is permitted but a new entity is created. USE association does not permit redeclaration and although I would like to allow it as I remarked before, I would not at this stage propose it because of the interaction with PUBLIC/PRIVATE and the effects of ONLY and rename. AS none of these latter apply for submodules there are no significant difficulties. -- Lawrie Schonfelder Honorary Senior Fellow University of Liverpool 1 Marine Park, West Kirby, Wirral, UK, CH48 5HN Phone: +44 (151) 625 6986