On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Emmanuel BEUQUE wrote:
> À (At) 15:25 +0100 2/02/98, Andreas Kraft écrivait (wrote) :
>
> I fully agree with you Andreas. I would really like the GetLastEventData to
> behave like that. In fact, I was just playing the devil's advocate because
> I've never seen any discussion on this point in the MUG mailing list.
:-))
> I think it's important that this point could be discussed before your
> meeting in Berlin. I wish I could be there, but as an independent
> developer, I definitely cannot affort the trip. But if some points could be
> discussed during a phone conference before the resolutions of the MTF are
> stated, this could be great for me.
It is a pity that you can not participate.
However, there should be a lot of discussions, especially for all the new,
to be added things.
We will set up an infrastructure here in Berlin during the meeting. We will
try to post the discussions on the mailing list as fast as possible.
I think Klaus will announce phone and fax numbers where can be reached
during the meeting.
> But, IMHO, again playing the devil's advocate, I imagine that this could be
> hard for some implementors if they put all actions of the link effect in a
> common execution stack, without knowing from where an abitrary elementary
> action come from when it is executed.
Right, same with our implementation. But, you can put a pseudo-action into
the stack which contains some additional informations. However, the
standard should not say to much about implementation details.
> Again, if it acts like you said, that's marvellous, perfect, from an author
> point of view, and I fully subscribe to your suggestion. I was just trying
> to have the opinion of some implementors.
I aggree, this might cause some redesign in the engines. Therefore, it might
be better not to add this action.
Andreas
-- o _ Andreas Kraft (\_|_) GMD FOKUS, kraft@fokus.gmd.de, +49 30 3463-7232 T> ] [ The sky is the limit