From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Sat Jun 21 04:35:37 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h5L2ZbuW034166 for sc22wg5-domo; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 04:35:37 +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 h5L2ZVEc034161 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 04:35:33 +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 h5L2ZQJe021751 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:35:26 -0700 Received: from math.jpl.nasa.gov (vsnyder@localhost) by math.jpl.nasa.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h5L2ZQNv021747 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:35:26 -0700 Message-Id: <200306210235.h5L2ZQNv021747@math.jpl.nasa.gov> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 X-Exmh-Isig-CompType: comp X-Exmh-Isig-Folder: inbox Reply-to: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov From: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: Thanks to Bill... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:35:26 -0700 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk Thanks to Bill for actually thinking about the Modules TR before Thursday of a meeting week. I appreciate the effort he's expended to convince me of his point of view. Unfortunately (for his camp) I'm not convinced. I had almost no correspondence or conversation about the TR between the time it was approved as a work item and meeting 163. Having little evidence that anybody else had seriously thought about it before meeting 163, I believe the current state resulted from hurried decisions. The message I got loud and clear after the first draft of the TR was that it was too complicated. I took that message to heart and made it as simple as I could. It made me recall Einstein's famous dictum: Make it as simple as possible, but no more. Given the initial "it's too complicated" message, I don't understand the "let's make it more complicated" message from meeting 163, and the ones I'm getting now. Let's do it the simplest way possible. We have to distinguish the interface for a module procedure with separate implementation from an external interface. If we use host association between a parent and its child submodules we have to distinguish the procedure's implementation from an entirely new procedure. We can't do anything simpler than putting exactly the same mark in the of the subprogram header in both places. Anything more is unnecessary complexity. A mark other than a word, say #, would increase rather than decrease life-cycle ownership costs. Thus: Zero words, in either place, are one less than necessary. For N>1, N words in either place are N-1 more than necessary. Different words in the two places are one more than is necessary. Ornamental constructions are more than is necessary. If anybody can demonstrate why the simple approach doesn't work, I'll consider some added complexity. If you don't like SEPARATE I urge you to think of a better word, not a Rube Goldberg scheme to avoid it. -- 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.