Hi Thilo, Quoting [Thilo Kielmann] (Aug 04 2006):
After all responses I have seen were about 1.3.6 and 1.3.8, can we assume 1.3.7 to be agreed upon?
1.3.7 is adressing deep/shallow copy behaviour - but it might be that numberation changed meanwhile. I reformulated 1.3.8. 'Object Life-Time' in terms of state ('Object State Life-Time'). That is probably closer to what you want. Hartmut and I discussed the topic once more, and Hartmut proposed to formulate that in pre- and post-conditions to method calls. That would remove any notion of language specifica, while keeping the general idea in place. I'd like to apply that notion to the text next week, and lets see how you (and others) like it. Is that ok with you? Cheers, Andre. PS.: I pondered about your remark in respect to code snippets again, and I'm afraid that I strongly disagree 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.
about 1.3.7.: as I wrote earlier, this should simply become:
The SAGA specification does NOT address issues of object life cycle and memory management at all. It is subject to the language bindings of SAGA to define this in a way that suits the respective programming languages.
Thanks,
Thilo -- "So much time, so little to do..." -- Garfield