Re: Extensibility: Fallback vs. Monolithic

Axel Polleres wrote:

>
>  If you ignore X then you loose soundness
>
>  If you ignore X then you loose completeness
>
> and then allowing additional (possibly descriptive)
> annotations which say for what cases you loose soundness or 
> completeness, respectively
>
> yes?
>
Even simpler, can't you just say

if you ignore a rule or disjunct  (for whatever reason) you loose 
completeness

if you ignore a conjunct (for whatever reason) you loose soundness

This would allow for fallback but not require any kind of fancy or 
complicated "fallback architecture".
Even better, the user could say whether they prefer soundness or 
completeness, and the translator could, upon encountering an unsupported 
or unknown syntax element, prune the syntax tree a the appropriate point 
to preserve soundness or completeness.

-- 


Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Gary Hallmark | Architect | +1.503.525.8043
Oracle Server Technologies
1211 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 800
Portland, OR 97204

Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 20:44:00 UTC