From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY,
	TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e382b50ddc696050
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-10 09:02:36 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!newsranger.com!www.newsranger.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
From: Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>
References: <3C0DB9D0.7184868A@acm.org>
 <smuP7.50028$xS6.82871@www.newsranger.com> <3C0EB851.77E7172A@boeing.com>
 <xMMP7.51415$xS6.84581@www.newsranger.com> <3C0FAF78.6F006DF7@boeing.com>
 <uV4Q7.52774$xS6.86977@www.newsranger.com> <bcKQ7.23842$Yy.296757@rwcrnsc53>
Subject: Re: List Strawman JC01
Message-ID: <vU5R7.56192$xS6.90235@www.newsranger.com>
X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please
X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or
X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 12:02:19 EST
Organization: http://www.newsranger.com
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:02:19 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17686
Date: 2001-12-10T17:02:19+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <bcKQ7.23842$Yy.296757@rwcrnsc53>, Mark Lundquist says...
>How does a choice of terminology result in more or less flexibility?

Hmmmm. I suppose it doesn't *have* to. I'm just thinking back to all those
routines I added directional parameters to upon the realization that the list we
have is really symmetrical. But I guess the symetrical stuff could be kept in
with the asymetrical naming, if that's what people really want to have. 

I'm not really seeing a preference for JC01's terminology being expressed here
though, except by the JC01 author. Mostly what I'm seeing is along the lines of
"I don't care". The only other input I saw was roughly, "I like the neutral
terminology, but I'm not married to the current names". 

I'm sorry if you think this is time-wasting minutia. But it has already pointed
out a couple of inconsistencies in the current strawman which should be fixed.
So even if we don't adopt the JC01 terminology, the discussion has been quite
benificial. Plus the JC01 author went through all that effort writing up JC01
and posting it. We at least needed to air some kind of discussion on it.

Is there anyone else out there who would prefer to see the strawman changed to
use the JC01 terminology?

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.