Subject: vote on motions 1 and 2
From: Cindy Eisner (EISNER@il.ibm.com)
Date: Wed Aug 08 2001 - 04:36:49 PDT
---------------------- Forwarded by Cindy Eisner/Haifa/IBM on 08/08/2001
14:36 ---------------------------
Dana Fisman <dana@wisdom.weizmann.ac.il> on 08/08/2001 11:45:11
Please respond to Dana Fisman <dana@wisdom.weizmann.ac.il>
To: Harry Foster <foster@rsn.hp.com>
cc: Yaron Wolfsthal/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Cindy Eisner/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Danny
Geist/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Dana Fisman/Haifa/Contr/IBM@IBMIL
Subject: vote on motions 1 and 2
Hello Harry,
I vote yes for motion 1.
I vote yes for motion 2 with the exception of
requirement 63 - full support of the assume guarantee paradigm.
I think that while it would be very nice if the selected language meets
this requirement, making this requirement essential forces us to discard
important constructs/features of a language (expressibility, for example),
since by including them the entire language do not fully support
a/g. I think it is best to have these other constructs, and compromise
with support of a/g to a subset of the language.
Dana.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Aug 08 2001 - 04:30:34 PDT