Re: Message arguments for chords...

[Vijay Saraswat <vj@research.att.com>]

I cant send a coherent message out on these matters till at least
this weekend. I dont quite know what is the significance of "the
change will go in today", just letting you know that I cant
engage in these discussions till later this week. Sorry, but that
is how life flows sometimes. 

Mostly, I am concerned about strategic issues, and not particular
details, my message will reflect that. 

Best,
Vijay


   Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 11:01:54 -0400 (EDT)
   From: Dave Kormann <davek@research.att.com>
   References: <199704291217.NAA00986@windrush.elsevier.co.uk>
   Content-Type: text
   Content-Length: 470

    > We have both the general requirement that MCP message arguments
    > (keyword value pairs) can appear in any order for a given message, and
    > also that cord arguments appearing *after* the _message: parameter
    > should be treated as arguments to be passed to the cord message.

   gah, yeah, this is broken.  i'm for making '_' reserved by #$#cord,
   any objections?

   also, if there are no vocal objections, the change from cord to
   mcp-cord will happen later today.
				   dk