CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0229-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0229-1.txt	2011/01/06 00:55:26	1.4
+++ ai05s/ai05-0229-1.txt	2011/01/27 06:06:17	1.5
@@ -1518,3 +1518,114 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
+From: Bob Duff
+Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011  6:19 PM
+
+The Fairfax minutes say:
+
+    Bob will figure out the wording needed to allow Priority and CPU as
+    aspects.
+
+which I'm not sure how to approach.  Rewrite the pragma Priority section to
+allow "task ... with Priority => ..."?  And say something in general about how
+aspects can be misc pragmas not mentioned already in this AI?
+
+Maybe the CPU thing should be ONLY an aspect (since everybody seems to prefer
+aspects nowadays)?
+
+I don't see anything about this in the Nov phone meeting minutes.
+
+Anyway, I think somebody in the "Everything's an Aspect" school of thought ought
+to take over the main authorship of this AI. The above "with a few topics" is
+really referring to pretty-much everything.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011  10:14 PM
+
+> Maybe the CPU thing should be ONLY an aspect (since everybody seems to
+> prefer aspects nowadays)?
+
+I don't think that there is anything general that needs to be said about
+pragmas. Remember that there is supposed to be an entire annex listing
+specifiable aspects. (That's the job I need to do, which is to discuss with you
+the best form of that annex. I'll do that off-line here.)
+
+As far as CPU goes, I thought we had decided to dump the pragma. But I obviously
+didn't record that, so we'll probably have to talk about it again.
+
+...
+> Anyway, I think somebody in the "Everything's an Aspect"
+> school of thought ought to take over the main authorship of this AI.
+> The above "with a few topics" is really referring to pretty-much
+> everything.
+
+No, someone still has to write the text for the introduction to the aspect annex
+and to suggest a common form for the entries in that annex. My job is just to
+verify that it can be automated (we want it to work like the attribute annex in
+terms of the actual source code). So that is more than just the stuff assigned
+to Tucker.
+
+The real problem is that I don't think we have anyone else that we can count on
+to get the work done in a timely fashion. If you can find someone else to take
+it over, I won't mind presuming that person isn't named Tucker. :-)
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Bob Duff
+Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011  9:55 AM
+
+> I don't think that there is anything general that needs to be said
+> about pragmas.
+
+I already wrote something general for representation pragmas.
+People complained that it doesn't cover Inline and CPU.  (Others?)
+
+>...Remember that there is supposed to be an entire annex listing
+>specifiable aspects. (That's the job I need to do, which is to discuss
+>with  you the best form of that annex. I'll do that off-line here.)
+>
+> As far as CPU goes, I thought we had decided to dump the pragma. But I
+> obviously didn't record that, so we'll probably have to talk about it again.
+
+If you mean CPU should be an aspect instead of a pragma, then I think that's a
+good idea, and I do (vaguely) remember discussing that.  I think there are two
+AI's that mention this pragma -- the one that defines it, and the one about
+dispatching domains that I took over from Alan.
+
+> ...
+> > Anyway, I think somebody in the "Everything's an Aspect"
+> > school of thought ought to take over the main authorship of this AI.
+> > The above "with a few topics" is really referring to pretty-much
+> > everything.
+>
+> No, someone still has to write the text for the introduction to the
+> aspect annex and to suggest a common form for the entries in that
+> annex. My job is just to verify that it can be automated (we want it
+> to work like the attribute annex in terms of the actual source code).
+> So that is more than just the stuff assigned to Tucker.
+
+As I said privately, I'm not convinced such an Annex is necessary.
+
+I already sent you an "introduction" privately.  No big deal.
+
+As to the entries, I wouldn't do them like attributes (where the entire text is
+duplicated in the annex).  I'd just put a command like:
+
+    @aspect{CPU, "The CPU on which to execute a task."}
+
+immediately before/after the place where CPU is defined.
+This would generate no text inline, and generate alphabetized text in the Annex.
+
+> The real problem is that I don't think we have anyone else that we can
+> count on to get the work done in a timely fashion. If you can find
+> someone else to take it over, I won't mind presuming that person isn't
+> named Tucker. :-)
+
+Shrug.  It seems simple enough to produce this annex.
+I'm happy to write the words (if everybody (except me!) agrees that the RM
+should weigh 50 pounds).
+
+****************************************************************
+