Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)]

On 2002-02-20 13:42, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:


> - ..  I am hearing that users require S-B and that seems very plausible to
> me.

Agreed. 

> ..  I believe both the datatype triple (S-A) and doublet (TDL/S-P) should
> be dropped.
> S-B is sufficient for now.

I wouldn't go that far.

We do still need a means to express local typing. Otherwise, type
safety cannot be assured. One context may assert an octalInteger
range and another a decimalInteger range. We need to be able to
state what we mean in each case locally so that we can trap
type conflicts.

> User experience and would tell us if S-B alone
> was inadequate, at which time, and with greater understanding of user
> needs, further machinery could be added.  As we have discovered, it is
> harder for a WG to withdraw a feature from a spec than it is to add to
> it.  Better to only put in what you know is needed, and add further stuff
> later as necessary.

This is true. 

> I strongly believe we must drop at least one of the doublet or datatype
> triple mechanisms.

We can drop the doublet idiom. We must at least retain one local idiom.

I think my recent posts suggest how the remaining idioms work together.

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 08:22:46 UTC