Sandro Hawke wrote: > FLD says "All logic-based RIF dialects are required to be derived from > RIF-FLD by specialization" and several variants of that notion appear > elsewhere in FLD and UCR (and possibly elsewhere, that I didn't notice). > > I don't really undertand what this constraint is trying to do. Is it a > promise that all future logic dialects from RIF-WG *will* use FLD? Is > it some kind of constraint on vendor extensions? I don't think it's > right for us to say either one here. > > I'm fine with conveying expectation, like: "Logic-based RIF dialects > are expected to be derived from RIF-FLD by specialization". Okay? Absolutely. I fully concur with you on this one, Sandro. And for the same reasons. > -- Sandro -hak -- Hassan Aït-Kaci * ILOG, Inc. - Product Division R&D http://koala.ilog.fr/wiki/bin/view/Main/HassanAitKaciReceived on Sunday, 25 May 2008 21:03:35 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:07:44 UTC