Hi,
1.3.7 is adressing deep/shallow copy behaviour - but it might be that numberation changed meanwhile.
indeed, another section got inserted. We are talking about 1.3.8 now. (I just got the current state out of CVS.)
I reformulated 1.3.8. 'Object Life-Time' in terms of state ('Object State Life-Time'). That is probably closer to what you want.
A little closer, but not really. Of 1.3.8., I agree with the first paragraph. The second paragraph, up to and including the item list is still C++-minded. Why isn't it as easy as: if you give parameters to SAGA methods, esp. to tasks, you have to make sure that these parameters will be available (read: not deleted) while they are still needed? -- and do so "as natively expected in the respective language", to cite the first paragraph. The final paragraph of 1.3.8 is simply wrong, because: A SAGA implementation MUST NEVER explicitly free resources of parameters to its methods.
PS.: I pondered about your remark in respect to code snippets again, and I'm afraid that I strongly disagree
sorry, which remark ???
here: I think application level code and semantics is all that matters to SAGA really. I can throw in more perl examples if you want, or C, to avoid the impression that its all about C++ (which it isn't), but I definitely think that testing the spec against simple use cases (that is what the snippets are) is a must.
Thilo -- Thilo Kielmann http://www.cs.vu.nl/~kielmann/