If you replace "does" with "does not" in (A) I'd agree ;-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Mike Taylor
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 3:03 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: CQL Profiling Proposal
> > Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 09:43:14 -0400
> > From: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Heavens to betsy! A four-message thread and I can't find a single
> > > statement to disagree with! What on earth is the world coming to?
> > Could you summarize then, because I didn't follow it.
> I'm sure Matthew or Rob will shout if I misunderstood their dialogue,
> but I took it to mean that (A) the mechanism described by the proposal
> does explicitly offer CQL profilers the wherewithal to invent
> completely new attribute types, and quite right too; but (B) if
> profilers really, really want to, then the mechanism is sufficiently
> flexible to make it possible for them to cheat (and quite right too).
> /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
> )_v__/\ "The body of a destructor is executed before the destructors
> for member objects. Destructors for nonstatic member
> objects are executed before the destructors for base classes.
> Destructors for nonvirtual base classes are executed before
> destructors for virtual base classes. Destructors for
> nonvirtual base classes are executed in reverse order of
> their declaration in the derived class. Destructors for
> virtual base classes are executed in the reverse order of
> their appearance in a depth-first left-to-right traversal of
> the directed acyclic graph of base classes; ``left-to-right''
> is the order of appearance of the base class names in the
> declaration of the derived class." -- the C++ reference
> manual, section 12.4, reminding my Why C++ Is Not My
> Programming Language.
> Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at