> 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.