Fwd (kielmann at cs.vu.nl): Re: [saga-rg] SAGA, object states, and concurrency

['Thilo Kielmann']

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/