From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Fri Jul 11 19:36:14 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h6BHaEwl068723 for sc22wg5-domo; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:36:14 +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 h6BHa7Ec068718 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:36:11 +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 h6BHa6Jh028866 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:36:06 -0700 Received: from math.jpl.nasa.gov (vsnyder@localhost) by math.jpl.nasa.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h6BHa6SH028862 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:36:06 -0700 Message-Id: <200307111736.h6BHa6SH028862@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: Separate interfaces for module procedures Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:36:06 -0700 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk John Reid and Aleksandar Donev have been discussing separate interfaces for module procedures. John wrote: >Please let's require complete agreement in all interfaces of a separate >procedure. We are trying to keep this simple, aren't we? and Aleksandar replied: > But I do believe there is benefit in *not* requiring to repeat the > redeclaration, but rather allow: John continued: > That's OK. What I dislike is redeclaration without complete agreement The only difference in the characteristics intentionally allowed by the current draft of the TR is that the procedure body may specify that the procedure is pure even if the interface doesn't. The only reason I put this in was to be consistent with [260:40-41] in 03-007. I don't object to removing this exception. The current draft also doesn't say anything about dummy argument names. This also was done to be consistent with existing interface body / procedure relations. It could be changed, but there's already been some resistance to allowing separate interface bodies to be different from other ones, for example by accessing their environment by host association. Should we make separate interfaces more different the others, or more alike them? I guess we'll need more straw votes at Dresden. -- 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.