CVS difference for ai22s/ai22-0005-1.txt

Differences between 1.9 and version 1.10
Log of other versions for file ai22s/ai22-0005-1.txt

--- ai22s/ai22-0005-1.txt	2023/11/17 06:47:54	1.9
+++ ai22s/ai22-0005-1.txt	2023/12/08 10:01:04	1.10
@@ -335,9 +335,12 @@
 >an alternative means to store streams which has more predicable memory usage
 >than the Streams.Storage.Unbounded package.
 
-We've never talked about "storing streams", and that's not an accident. It's not the streams that are getting stored, but rather the data sent to them.
+We've never talked about "storing streams", and that's not an accident. It's not
+the streams that are getting stored, but rather the data sent to them.
 
-These packages are just an implementation of streams that don't use any files. Thus, they are just an in-memory implementation -- but we don't use that description, either, because "memory" isn't well-defined (in an RM sense).
+These packages are just an implementation of streams that don't use any files. 
+Thus, they are just an in-memory implementation -- but we don't use that
+description, either, because "memory" isn't well-defined (in an RM sense).
 
 Probably we need a more aggressive reordering:
 
@@ -350,7 +353,125 @@
 the Streams.Storage.Unbounded package, at the cost of needing to determine a
 maximum number of stream elements that can be stored.
 
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Jean-Pierre Rosen
+Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023  3:57 AM
+
+> I don't really like either of these, but something better seems doesn't seem
+> easy to come up with.
+Or a simple swap:
+Reason: The Streams.Storage.Bounded package is provided in order to make
+available an alternative, which gives more predictable memory usage, to the
+Streams.Storage.Unbounded package.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023  7:23 AM
+
+Seems better.  I still find "is provided in order to make available an alternative"
+in the "department of redundancy department"...  Also, the placement of the "which"
+clause is still a bit awkward.  How about:
+
+Reason: As an alternative to the Streams.Storage.Unbounded package, the
+Streams.Storage.Bounded package is available, which provides more predictable
+memory usage.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Christoph Grein
+Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023  7:52 AM
+
+My favorites in descending order:
+
+Reason: The alternative package Streams.Storage.Bounded provides more
+predictable memory usage than the Streams.Storage.Unbounded package. 
+
+We know this difference already from the container packages.
+
+Reason: The package Streams.Storage.Bounded provides more predictable
+memory usage than the Streams.Storage.Unbounded package, at the cost of
+needing to determine a maximum number of stream elements that can be stored. 
+
+Reason: As an alternative to the Streams.Storage.Unbounded package, the
+Streams.Storage.Bounded package is available, which provides more
+predictable memory usage. 
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Jeffery Carter
+Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023  9:25 AM
+
+> provides more predictable memory usage.
+
+Does the ARM use "memory" now? It used to always use "storage" (as in these
+pkg names).
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023  8:33 PM
+
+We're talking about an AARM note, not the RM.
+
+The latest AARM has 45 subclauses that use "memory" in some way (I didn't look
+in detail how). This is contrasted to 91 subclauses that use "storage" in some
+way (many of which are talking about storage pools or one of the packages that
+have Storage in the name).
+
+There doesn't seem to be a clear winner in terms of AARM notes, so I think the
+principle of least change applies here. I left it as "memory".
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023  8:39 PM
+
+>Seems better.  I still find "is provided in order to make available an alternative" 
+>in the "department of redundancy department"...
+
+I would have called it "verbal diarrhea". :-)
+
+>... Also, the placement of the "which" clause is still a bit awkward.  How about:
+>	Reason: As an alternative to the Streams.Storage.Unbounded package, the
+>     Streams.Storage.Bounded package is available, which provides more predictable
+>     memory usage.
+
+I think we could dispense with "available", too. And the commas if we use "that"
+rather than "which". So perhaps:
+
+Reason: The Streams.Storage.Bounded package is provided as an alternative that
+gives more predictable memory usage than the Streams.Storage.Unbounded package.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023  8:55 PM
+
+>My favorites in descending order:
+	
+>  The alternative package Streams.Storage.Bounded provides more 
+> predictable  memory usage than the Streams.Storage.Unbounded package.
+
+I had forgotten that I had previously suggested this (the problem with reading
+only the unread messages in the thread). This is better than my recent suggestion.
+
+>We know this difference already from the container packages.
+
+Right, but those occur after this subclause (so a linear reader will not have 
+encountered them yet). We try to avoid forward references as much as possible.
+That's why I suggested (and used):
+	
+>  The package Streams.Storage.Bounded provides more predictable memory 
+> usage  than the Streams.Storage.Unbounded package, at the cost of 
+> needing to  determine a maximum number of stream elements that can be stored.
+
+I note that the phrase "more predictable memory usage" comes from A.18(5.j/3).
+That note doesn't explain the trade-off, it seems reasonable to do so somewhere.
+
 [Handled]
+
 
 ****************************************************************
 

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent