- From: Mark Proctor <mproctor@redhat.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:19:00 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Sandro Hawke wrote: > Gary was kind enough to draft a response to WL's Last Call comment. I > added a header/footer. Please look it over; I guess we'll send it > Monday if no one has any comment. > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_WL > > (Chris, have you made any progress with the other LC comments? We > wanted to try to close the loop on each of them by Tuesday!) > > -- Sandro > > > > A minor point is the absence of globals, i.e., variables with visibility in > > all action parts. This is a common convenience feature that permits you to > > implement general actions. > We know that many PR languages include many features of procedural programming languages, such as global variables, loops, etc. This was > considered out of scope, given the bias toward overlap with logical rule languages. This isn't something I would consider out of scope for real world usage, it's practical and necessary for many people. Mark.
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2009 00:19:41 UTC