[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
> From: scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 07:26:17PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
> > > > Um.... given those specifications, which appear to be effectively
> > > > identical, why would a client of this (meta-)interface ever use o=
> ne of
> > > > these procedures in preference to the other? Therefore why does=
> > > > interface need both?
> > > Because code may be written initially that accepts an ordered=3D20
> > > collection or sequence, and may wish to pass an unordered bag in th=
> > > future. This allows that to occur without error. Thank you for th=
> > > constructive discussion.
> > Well, gosh. It doesn't seem to me like a minor point. It doesn't
> > seem like a problem that is really fixed by a quick tweak. It seems
> > to me to point to some deep conceptual errors in the whole framework
> > of 44.
> Hmm? I just pointed out how its very much by design to have those=20
> functions behave how they do. =20
You have an interface spec that gives two names to one specification.
Hello?!?! Anybody home?
Sorry, but, if you're writing a standards document, you can't just
count on people to "get the [non-explicit] idea".