Re: Repost issue: missing accessors same as NILs?

 Rich,
 what I mean by "default value" is, of course, an 
"application-specified default value". Would this clarification 
satisfy your concerns, or is it something else?
 I don't like the words "unspecified value" because IMHO that is 
just a special case of the above. But I can imagine the situation 
can be viewed the opposite - the former being a special case of 
the latter, is that right? 8-)
 I'm really concerned about potentially misleading formulations 
so thanks for your comments.

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Rich Salz wrote:

 > I don't think I wrote clearly enough.
 > 
 > I am concerned that by saying "default value" rather than "unspecified 
 > values", that careless programmers will assume an "obvious" default, 
 > such as zero for all numbers, etc., and that SOAP implementors will be
 > forced to implement this because careless programmers on popular 
 > platforms end up "forcing" everyone else to play along.
 > 
 > I have been doing distributed systems for awhile -- I maintained an idl 
 > compiler at BBN over a decade ago -- and I was still mislead by your text.
 > 	/r$
 > 
 >