Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

So...

Expand Messages
  • gmc444@yahoo.com
    Assuming that we re finished with the monumental STRING effort, what s next on our agenda? Greg
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 20, 2001
      Assuming that we're finished with the monumental STRING effort,
      what's next on our agenda?

      Greg
    • Roger Browne
      ... Here are two possibilities: 1. Following our work with STRING descendants and make_from_string , we could apply a corresponding solution to ARRAY and
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 21, 2001
        Greg wrote:
        >
        > Assuming that we're finished with the monumental STRING effort,
        > what's next on our agenda?

        Here are two possibilities:

        1. Following our work with STRING descendants and 'make_from_string', we
        could apply a corresponding solution to ARRAY and 'make_from_array'.

        2. As we already worked on a few CHARACTER features (as part of the work
        on the STRING class), we could complete the CHARACTER class. It's quite a
        small class and shouldn't take long.

        There are many more possibilities. Does anyone have other priorities?

        I'm happy to continue to chair the discussions as long as the vendors
        continue to move towards ELKS compliance. But if someone else would like
        a turn I'd be more than happy - just say so.

        Regards,
        Roger
        --
        Roger Browne - roger@... - Everything Eiffel
        19 Eden Park Lancaster LA1 4SJ UK - Phone +44 1524 32428
      • James McKim
        Yes, a third alternative would be to go to work on COMPARABLE. Otherwise, STRING isn t really quite finished.... -- Jim
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 23, 2001
          Yes, a third alternative would be to go to work on COMPARABLE.
          Otherwise, STRING isn't really quite finished....

          -- Jim

          >
          > Greg wrote:
          > >
          > > Assuming that we're finished with the monumental STRING effort,
          > > what's next on our agenda?
          >
          > Here are two possibilities:
          >
          > 1. Following our work with STRING descendants and 'make_from_string', we
          > could apply a corresponding solution to ARRAY and 'make_from_array'.
          >
          > 2. As we already worked on a few CHARACTER features (as part of the work
          > on the STRING class), we could complete the CHARACTER class. It's quite a
          > small class and shouldn't take long.
          >
          > There are many more possibilities. Does anyone have other priorities?
          >
          > I'm happy to continue to chair the discussions as long as the vendors
          > continue to move towards ELKS compliance. But if someone else would like
          > a turn I'd be more than happy - just say so.
          >
          > Regards,
          > Roger
          > --
          > Roger Browne - roger@... - Everything Eiffel
          > 19 Eden Park Lancaster LA1 4SJ UK - Phone +44 1524 32428
          >
          > ---------------------------
          >
          > http://www.eiffel-nice.org/
          >
          > --------------------------
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
          >
        • Arno Wagner
          ... Good idea IMO. Some things in COMPARABLE we deferred when we worked on STRING could be cleaned up now. Regards, Arno ... -- Arno Wagner Dipl. Inform.
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 23, 2001
            On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 09:45:02AM -0400, James McKim wrote:
            >
            > Yes, a third alternative would be to go to work on COMPARABLE.
            > Otherwise, STRING isn't really quite finished....
            >
            > -- Jim

            Good idea IMO. Some things in COMPARABLE we deferred when we worked
            on STRING could be cleaned up now.

            Regards,
            Arno

            > >
            > > Greg wrote:
            > > >
            > > > Assuming that we're finished with the monumental STRING effort,
            > > > what's next on our agenda?
            > >
            > > Here are two possibilities:
            > >
            > > 1. Following our work with STRING descendants and 'make_from_string', we
            > > could apply a corresponding solution to ARRAY and 'make_from_array'.
            > >
            > > 2. As we already worked on a few CHARACTER features (as part of the work
            > > on the STRING class), we could complete the CHARACTER class. It's quite a
            > > small class and shouldn't take long.
            > >
            > > There are many more possibilities. Does anyone have other priorities?
            > >
            > > I'm happy to continue to chair the discussions as long as the vendors
            > > continue to move towards ELKS compliance. But if someone else would like
            > > a turn I'd be more than happy - just say so.
            > >
            > > Regards,
            > > Roger
            > > --
            > > Roger Browne - roger@... - Everything Eiffel
            > > 19 Eden Park Lancaster LA1 4SJ UK - Phone +44 1524 32428
            > >
            > > ---------------------------
            > >
            > > http://www.eiffel-nice.org/
            > >
            > > --------------------------
            > >
            > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            > ---------------------------
            >
            > http://www.eiffel-nice.org/
            >
            > --------------------------
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >

            --
            Arno Wagner Dipl. Inform. ETH Zuerich wagner@...
            GnuPG: ID: F0C049F1 FP: 8C E0 6F A5 CC B1 5A 11 ED C7 AD D2 05 5E BB 6F

            Software Engineering is that part of Computer Science which is too
            difficult for the Computer Scientist. - F. L. Bauer.
          • Roger Browne
            ... And COMPARABLE cannot be finished until GENERAL is done, because of its use of is_equal . How about this sequence: 1. ARRAY ( make_from_array and ARRAY
            Message 5 of 10 , Jul 23, 2001
              James McKim wrote:

              > ... alternative would be to go to work on COMPARABLE.
              > Otherwise, STRING isn't really quite finished....

              And COMPARABLE cannot be finished until GENERAL is done, because of its
              use of 'is_equal'.

              How about this sequence:

              1. ARRAY ('make_from_array' and ARRAY descendants)
              2. CHARACTER
              3. GENERAL
              4. COMPARABLE

              I expect that (1) and (2) will be quite quick compared to (3) and (4).

              Regards,
              Roger
              --
              Roger Browne - roger@... - Everything Eiffel
              19 Eden Park Lancaster LA1 4SJ UK - Phone +44 1524 32428
            • Emmanuel STAPF [ISE]
              ... Do you mean ANY? If I recall correctly the committee decided to remove GENERAL in favor of ANY, or am I wrong? ... Why CHARACTER only and not the other
              Message 6 of 10 , Jul 23, 2001
                > And COMPARABLE cannot be finished until GENERAL is done, because of its
                > use of 'is_equal'.

                Do you mean ANY? If I recall correctly the committee decided to remove GENERAL
                in favor of ANY, or am I wrong?

                > How about this sequence:
                >
                > 1. ARRAY ('make_from_array' and ARRAY descendants)
                > 2. CHARACTER
                > 3. GENERAL
                > 4. COMPARABLE

                Why CHARACTER only and not the other basic types? Even though 3 and 4 might take
                some time, I think it is better to put the good basis first.

                Regards,
                Manu
              • Roger Browne
                ... NICE has not removed GENERAL, but I think Bertrand has removed GENERAL in his ETL3 draft. Over the years, many people have suggested to remove GENERAL. The
                Message 7 of 10 , Jul 23, 2001
                  > > And COMPARABLE cannot be finished until GENERAL is done, because of its
                  > > use of 'is_equal'.

                  "Emmanuel STAPF [ISE]" wrote:
                  > Do you mean ANY? If I recall correctly the committee decided to remove GENERAL
                  > in favor of ANY, or am I wrong?

                  NICE has not removed GENERAL, but I think Bertrand has removed GENERAL in
                  his ETL3 draft.

                  Over the years, many people have suggested to remove GENERAL. The ELKS
                  specification could be written in terms of class ANY. This would still
                  allow a vendor to support class GENERAL (with the features inherited into
                  ANY), but would not require it.

                  > > 1. ARRAY ('make_from_array' and ARRAY descendants)
                  > > 2. CHARACTER
                  > > 3. GENERAL
                  > > 4. COMPARABLE
                  >
                  > Why CHARACTER only and not the other basic types?

                  The ELKS2001 specification of STRING (that we have just completed)
                  required some changes to CHARACTER, and this suggested the possibility to
                  revise the whole class.

                  The changes we already made to class CHARACTER are:

                  (1) specify that infix "<" depends on the code
                  values of the underlying character set, and

                  (2) add features 'as_lower', 'as_upper'.

                  > Even though 3 and 4 might take
                  > some time, I think it is better to put the good basis first.

                  So you are suggesting to do ancestors before descendants. That does seem
                  to make sense.

                  We should probably still sort out ARRAY.make_from_array first. We left
                  this issue unresolved with ELKS 2000 ARRAY. Since then, we developed a
                  good solution for ELKS 2001 'make_from_string' that can also be applied
                  to 'make_from_array'.

                  How about:

                  1. ARRAY ('make_from_array' and ARRAY descendants)
                  2. ANY (or GENERAL if change is not approved)
                  3. COMPARABLE
                  4. HASHABLE (because it is ancestor of CHARACTER)
                  5. CHARACTER

                  Regards,
                  Roger
                  --
                  Roger Browne - roger@... - Everything Eiffel
                  19 Eden Park Lancaster LA1 4SJ UK - Phone +44 1524 32428
                • Emmanuel STAPF [ISE]
                  ... For some reasons I thought we had decided this at the NICE level. I thing message 1131 made me think this. I m not sure about the other Eiffel vendors, but
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jul 23, 2001
                    > NICE has not removed GENERAL, but I think Bertrand has removed GENERAL in
                    > his ETL3 draft.

                    For some reasons I thought we had decided this at the NICE level. I thing
                    message 1131 made me think this. I'm not sure about the other Eiffel vendors,
                    but for ISE, in its release 5.o there is no more GENERAL class and we have moved
                    the content of GENERAL into ANY.

                    So I would suggest to run a vote since from what I understood I've heard that
                    many people would like to see ANY and GENERAL collapse in one ANY class. If it
                    was not the case, I withdraw the vote proposal.

                    REgards,
                    Manu
                  • Emmanuel STAPF [ISE]
                    ... Ok with me. Manu
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jul 23, 2001
                      > 1. ARRAY ('make_from_array' and ARRAY descendants)
                      > 2. ANY (or GENERAL if change is not approved)
                      > 3. COMPARABLE
                      > 4. HASHABLE (because it is ancestor of CHARACTER)
                      > 5. CHARACTER

                      Ok with me.

                      Manu
                    • Berend de Boer
                      ... Fine. ... PLATFORM and GENERAL. -- Groetjes, Berend. (-:
                      Message 10 of 10 , Jul 28, 2001
                        Roger Browne <egroups@...> writes:

                        > 2. As we already worked on a few CHARACTER features (as part of the work
                        > on the STRING class), we could complete the CHARACTER class. It's quite a
                        > small class and shouldn't take long.

                        Fine.


                        > There are many more possibilities. Does anyone have other
                        > priorities?

                        PLATFORM and GENERAL.


                        --
                        Groetjes,

                        Berend. (-:
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.