From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Thu Jun 26 11:00:06 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h5Q906cD065488 for sc22wg5-domo; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:00:06 +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 inf.rl.ac.uk (nfs7.inf.rl.ac.uk [130.246.72.7]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h5Q900Ec065483 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:00:02 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk) Received: from numerical.cc.rl.ac.uk (numerical [130.246.8.23]) by inf.rl.ac.uk (8.11.6+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id h5Q8w0D07225 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:58:00 +0100 (BST) Received: from rl.ac.uk (jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202]) by numerical.cc.rl.ac.uk (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA28217 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:08:49 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <3EFAB73D.8080603@rl.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:05:01 +0100 From: John Reid Reply-To: j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2812) IMPORT and separate interfaces] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2812) IMPORT and separate interfaces Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:58:02 +0100 (BST) From: Malcolm Cohen To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk CC: John Reid Re: > Aleksandar has pointed out that 03-123 says nothing about IMPORT > statements in separate interface bodies. > > There are three possibilities: > > 1. Separate interface bodies don't automatically have host association. > If you want it, you have to put in an IMPORT statement. This is a > bit bizarre, given that the procedure whose interface it declares > might well be in the same scoping unit, and would have host > association. It seems to me that this is the only acceptable version. Having two kinds of interface bodies with a subtle difference (whatever the chosen syntax is - a keyword on the interface block or a keyword on the procedure heading, it's still subtle) control whether host association is applied or not is IMO immeasurably worse than either having it always or not having it ever. We got this wrong once, we cannot ever fix it there, let's just stick with it. Consistency and simplicity IMO override having some weird effect even if it is "nice". As to the "bit bizarre" idea, I don't agree. This sort of thing is pervasive throughout the language, when there are entities described in different scopes. > 2. Separate interface bodies do automatically have host association, and No. Some mechanism should be present to make it clear what is happening, and that mechanism should be available in all interface bodies, not just these ones. Hang on, don't we have such a mechanism - called IMPORT? Cheers, -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)