Re: [disc] argument order to cords...

[Erik Ostrom <eostrom@research.att.com>]

> > > o   cords are a special case of MCP message with a fixed
> > >     keyword/value order
> > 
> > No.  The use of the word "after" in the spec is incorrect.
> 
> So, cords *are* a special case of MCP message where the order is
> important.  What are we confusing each other about here?!

I don't get it.  Order is NOT significant.  The use of the word
"after" in the spec is incorrect.  I think the description of the cord
message should be significantly reworked, but in the meantime,
try replacing this sentence:

    The arguments after the _message argument are the
    arguments to the cord message. 

with this one:

    All of the arguments except for _message and _id are
    arguments to the cord message.

See, no order, just exclusion.  Does that help any?  If not, I can try
writing an expanded explanation of how cords work; I think it needs
expanding anyway.