>From: Gordon Vreugdenhil <gordonv@model.com> >I am uncomfortable with 2131. It is setting a precedent that >a keyword distinction is needed (and appropriate) to get a >different level of warning reporting. My take on it was that it was another distinct set of conditions to be checked, just as unique and priority check different conditions. The only weakness I see in the analogy is that unique0 is almost the same as unique, and that the same checking can already be gotten by using unique and adding an empty else/default clause. If this idiom is common enough, the convenience might justify the extra keyword. >I know that we have previously stayed away from standardizing >attribute forms but it seems to me that we should at least >be considering this more thoroughly before adopting the keyword >approach. Since there seems to be some tendency to add >required warnings, if we want to standardize control over the >conditions and forms of such warnings, I'd like to have that >discussion explicitly. The step of standardizing an attribute for this one case seems bigger than adding another keyword. If this were viewed as turning off one of the standard warnings, and there was reason to expect the addition of more such controls, then I would agree with you. But this can be viewed as just another set of conditions distinct from the ones for unique and priority, and different keywords have already been used for that. I don't see an indication that other variations of this will be proposed (what other variations are left?) For this one case, I don't think users would bother with learning a new attribute-based mechanism. If there is no unique0, I expect they will just add an empty else/default. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Dec 17 08:17:23 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 17 2007 - 08:18:22 PST