Issue 105: All interfaces must be defined at global scope? (c_mapping-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Severity: Summary: Summary: Section 14.3 of the C mapping says that interface definitions may not occur within the scope of module declarations. Doesn"t it mean "within the scope of another interface definition"? Resolution: resolved and closed Revised Text: Issue Description Comments Vote 105 All interfaces must be defined at global scope? Replace sentence to clarify 3:0 For: LM, HP, Mercury Existing sentence 19.3 v 2.2 All interfaces must be defined at global scope (no nested interfaces). replace with All IDL interfaces will be translated to the C Language global scope. Actions taken: September 11, 1996: Received issue December 12, 1996: moved from cxx_revision to c-rev-wg October 5, 2000: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== From geoff Wed Sep 11 13:26:49 1996 Received: by amethyst.omg.org.omg.org (5.4R2.01/1.34) id AA05289; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:26:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:26:49 -0400 From: geoff (Geoffrey Speare) Message-Id: <9609111726.AA05289@amethyst.omg.org.omg.org> To: issue-logger@omg.org Subject: C Mapping: all interfaces must be defined at global scope? X-Omg-Issue: 105 Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 17:08:16 PDT Sender: Bill Janssen From: Bill Janssen To: issues@omg.org Subject: C Mapping: all interfaces must be defined at global scope? Section 14.3 says, ``All interfaces must be defined at global scope (_no_ nested interfaces).'' This says, I believe, that interface definitions may not occur within the scope of module declarations. Probably not what's intended? Shouldn't it say instead, ``No interface may be defined inside the scope of another interface definition.''? More or less what the parenthetical remark says? Bill >From mail Tue Oct 8 22:58 EDT 1996 Sender: Bill Janssen From: Bill Janssen To: c-rev-wg@omg.org Subject: suggested resolution for issue 105 (all interfaces must be defined at global scope?) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 19:55:10 PDT Content-Length: 256 I suggest we resolve this be rewording the sentence in section 14.3 that now says, ``All interfaces must be defined at global scope (_no_ nested interfaces).'' to say, ``No interface may be defined inside the scope of another interface definition''. Bill >From mail Tue Oct 8 22:58 EDT 1996 Sender: Bill Janssen From: Bill Janssen To: c-rev-wg@omg.org Subject: suggested resolution for issue 105 (all interfaces must be defined at global scope?) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 19:55:10 PDT Content-Length: 256 I suggest we resolve this be rewording the sentence in section 14.3 that now says, ``All interfaces must be defined at global scope (_no_ nested interfaces).'' to say, ``No interface may be defined inside the scope of another interface definition''. Bill Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:11:24 -0500 From: "Barker, Thomas" Subject: Issues to be discused and voted by 3/24/2000(COB) To: "'C-RFT'" Message-id: <99AA2270B1E6D111BCE10000F805F17F043EB1FD@emss35m02.owg.fs.lmco.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-UIDL: K,Ie9SN0!!?]7!!*@,!! I want to start making some progress on the C RTF (I aplologize for not getting to it earlier, but it been a bad fall and winter). I think that many of the issues can be dealt with quickly so I propose to try to kill about 10 per week for the next couple of months. This batch seemed typical. I just took the first 10 from the list at http://www.omg.org/issues/c_mapping-rtf.html. I'd think the requirement for a vote by 3/24 seems reasonable, but if I discusion between now and 3/17 indicates that any particular issue(s) are not agreeable to everyone I will pull that issue(s) from the list to be voted in this batch. I have gone through the issues, copied the name and summary sentence into this note, then proposed a resolution for each. Tom Issue 105: All interfaces must be defined at global scope? Summary: Section 14.3 of the C mapping says that interface definitions may not occur within the scope of module declarations. Doesn't it mean "within the scope of another interface definition"? Discussion - To me the problem does not seem significant. The paragraph is written from the viewpoint of what will result in C, but it doesn't say that. It intends to say that all interfaces will be defined at the C Language, global scope. The reader seems to be thinking that it is requiring all IDL interfaces to be defined at the global scope. We could clarify it by changing the first sentence to: "All IDL interfaces will be translated to the C Language global scope."