Re (2): Deleting versions

> > 1.  By having (DAV:must-be-root-version) as a postcondition, you're
> > preventing an implementation from deleting the last remaining version
> > from a version history.  I assume this is your intent?  Like so many
> > other things, it must be inferred rather than finding it stated in
> > the text.  *sigh*
> 
> The entire postcondition statement is:
>      (DAV:must-be-root-version): If the root version of a version
>      history is deleted, there MUST be another version that is the
>      new root version, i.e. that is the ancestor of all other versions
>      in the version history.
> I think it is easily implied that you cannot therefore delete *all*
> versions of a version history and satisfy this postcondition; but I have no
> objection to adding to this statement if you really think it needs it.
I agree that it's rather clear that you can't delete the last version.
OTOH I find the name a little bit misleading. Perhaps because I'm not a
native speaker.
I would prefer must-be-a-root-version or perhaps better must-exist-root-version.

Cheers, Edgar



-- 
edgar@edgarschwarz.de                    http://www.edgarschwarz.de
*          DOSenfreie Zone.        Running Active Oberon.         *
Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler.     Albert Einstein