Re: Encapsulating Derivation

On Wed, 2006-18-10 at 12:02 -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Weiming raised an interesting idea for derivation.  I would really 
> appreciate comments from other folks.  And I have had two thoughts 
> since his note.  Questions at the bottom for the group.
> 
[..]
> So, the questions:
> Do we want to switch to encapsulating derivation?
> Do we want to extend the Support LFB Class reporting to support 
> substitutability?
> 

Hate to be the party pooper, but my answer to both is No. Main reason is
I am already overwhelmed with too many features. In my experiences so
far i have found myself always declaring from scratch even on related
LFBs - so even the main justification of "avoiding redeclaration" is not
meaningful to me. I would go as far as say kill this feature because the
room for pitfalls is just unpredictable. If that is too much to ask for
then keep it simple, lets get some deployment/interop experience and
revisit in next reincarnation of the model RFC.


cheers,
jamal