> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 13:22:48 +0200
> From: Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>
>
> [snip]
> Being flexible, not returning an error message and making clear that
> the client cannot rely on sorting is the best we can do to keep
> interoperability.
Interesting that people use the word "interoperability" to mean two
diametrically opposed things. Theo's using it here to mean an
arrangement where a system just does the best it can and muddles
through; whereas it also denotes a system with extremely rigorous
semantics, in which a request that can't be honoured precisely MUST be
refused with a clear error.
I think both approaches have much to commend them, and I am not going
to try to argue for one above the other. But I do think it's
important when we discuss possible feature in terms of their effect on
"interoperability" that we know which kind we mean.
_/|_ _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "C++ is history repeated as tragedy; Java is history repeated
as farce" -- Scott McKay.
