[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: simple ?= 1-line multiline, redux

To: "Erik Ostrom" <eostrom@research.att.com>, <mcp-dev@research.att.com>
Subject: RE: simple ?= 1-line multiline, redux
From: "Jay Carlson" <nop@mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 06:31:31 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <199805180517.BAA20529@bual.research.att.com>
Sender: owner-mcp-dev@research.att.com

> given this ambiguity and the possible of multiple implementation
> strategies, i think the best solution is for package developers to
> take a defensive approach, and refrain from specifying packages such
> that the same argument can be either simple or multi-line and have
> different semantics depending on type.  perhaps we should put a note
> to this effect somewhere near the spec.

The registrar could refuse to register such protocols.

Jay

References:
- simple ?= 1-line multiline, redux
  - From: Erik Ostrom <eostrom@research.att.com>

Prev by Date: RE: simple ?= 1-line multiline, redux
Next by Date: RE: simple ?= 1-line multiline, redux
Prev by thread: simple ?= 1-line multiline, redux
Next by thread: RE: simple ?= 1-line multiline, redux
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread