Subject: Re: Paul_P1
From: Paul J. Menchini (mench@mench.com)
Date: Fri Jan 03 2003 - 02:20:04 PST
Farrell,
> The interleaved comments, below, represent an ammendment (IMHO minor)
> to your proposal.
I'm in complete agreement with you in that the treatment of null array
arguments should be correct and not draconian.
As to backwards compatibility, since the current behavior is to treat
them as errors, I do not feel that it is a problem to make the change.
We're not changing existing semantics, just enlarging the set of legal
semantics.
However, I'm willing to defer to the group on this one. If they feel
that it is necessary to preserve the existing behavior wrt null arrays
while also admitting the enlarged semantics, then I'll go along.
An alternative to your suggestion for a layer of functions is to provide
a final, Boolean argument specifying how null arrays should be treated,
with the default value of this argument specifying the default treatment
the group desires.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Jan 03 2003 - 02:42:09 PST