[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Well, in my attempt to summarize the discussion, I apparently botched
it. In re-reading it, I don't think I did justice to the summary of the
alternative view. However, despite a number of editing errors and
typo's, I think "thoroughly garbled" is a bit strong.

The reason there is no text under the Rationale heading is that the text
that occured in version 1 was  moved into the discussion and aesthetic
sections. I agree the proposals read better if the Rationale header
includes a summary of what is to come. I would summarize the Rationale
is that this is the simplest and most consistent of the alternatives
considered.  The endorsement summary was removed because enough
arguments and new evidence and test cases had arisen that it would have
been presumptuous to copy an endorsement from a previous proposal into a

I did review all of the mail before preparing the latest version. I read
carefully David's original arguments and the responses. I don't see any
need to reiterate them, but it would be useful to respond to the
additional comments which were posted since. In particular,  the
original argument (unless this is an error, it is possible to construct
non-abortable loops) had two serious rebuttals (independent of this
issue, it is possible to construct non-abortable loops; sometimes users
*want* to create non-abortable loops). 

I agree to postpone this issue for the next round; if anyone would like
a copy of the previous mail on the topic (I have about 25 messages
saved) let me know and I'll make it available.

The mail I have says that Pitman, Daniels, Fahlman, Ram, Steele (and
myself) support the current proposal (modulo a few minor edits).