[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@MIT-MC.ARPA>
- Subject: HANDERSON@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
- From: Steven <Handerson@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 1984 19:28 EDT
- Cc: cl-error-handling@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: Msg of 13 Oct 1984 19:24-EDT from Kent M Pitman <KMP at MIT-MC>
Actually, I disagree with the terminology. "Event" is fine. However, you're
presuming that there will be a "condition object" associated with a particular
event, and I think there may be some other issues we need to get through first.
I think condition should be reserved to mean "an event deemed interesting by
CL". That way, we can talk about whether an event is a condition or not. I
also think less-common word should be used for the things that may eventually
be created - perhaps the phrase "condition object" or somesuch (we don't need
to agree what this is yet). One would then signal conditions, not events.
A letter I will try to write later this evening will talk about error and some
other related issues. It will probably also lead the discussion further, so
messages realting to terminology should probably try to reach a conclusion.
Moon has flamed at me for reserving nice words for flavor stuff - I think nice
words should only refer to non-implementation things.