Subject: Fwd: RE: SDL-News: Fwd: [SDLTF-Members] SDL IS IN DANGER
From: William H. Skelton (W.Skelton#SOLINET.com)
Date: Fri Dec 19 2003 - 00:30:16 GMT
Become an SDL Forum Society member <http://www.sdl-forum.org/Society/members.htm>
The originator of this message is responsible for its content.
-----From "William H. Skelton" <W.Skelton#SOLINET.com> to sdlnews -----
Dear Richard,
Thank you for this serious contribution, which is much appreciated.
The issue of reordering has been addressed on the task force mailing list
(www.SDL-Task-Force.org) and the current status is, it is open for discussion.
Reordering with save has some limitations, including transparency and no
way to flush saved signals in a controlled and atomic way (raised by
Alkis). Under consideration to avoid these limitations is a suggestion
from Ottawa University to have a 'combined event', consisting of several
events that can happen in any order.
Perhaps you missed these comments, but it would be interesting to know your
opinion.
I am also interested in your comments about simplifying an SDL design if
save is not in actual use, as I don't understand the background on this
subject very well myself. Can you provide more information on this?
William
>From: Sanders Richard <Richard.Sanders#sintef.no>
>To: "'William H. Skelton'" <W.Skelton#SOLINET.com>,
> members#sdl-task-force.org
>Cc: sdlnews#sdl-forum.org
>Subject: RE: SDL-news: Fwd: [SDLTF-Members] SDL IS IN DANGER
>Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:03:59 +0100
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
>X-RCPT-TO: <W.Skelton#SOLINET.com>
>
>Just adding my voice here to support Graf and Doldi, and probably scores of
>others that don't bother to use this medium to express their thoughts.
>
>While it is true that the SAVE construct complicates SDL, it is a mechanism
>that is well understood by the users, and is the only function available to
>reorder the signals in the input queue.
>
>The alternative, which me and others have experience with, is using more
>than one input queue with different priority. While this is attractive in
>implementation, it makes formal analysis more complicated, and has not been
>included in the language.
>
>Removing SAVE is not the way to simplify SDL, although you can simplify the
>implementation of an SDL design if SAVE is not in actual use (but that is
>another issue).
>
>The is not a monopoly of SDL tools, as far as I am aware of.
>
>Yours,
>
>Richard Sanders
>user of SDL since 1985
------------------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Skelton, Engineering Dept.
SOLINET GmbH Solutions for Innovative Networks
Mittlerer Pfad 26, 70499 Stuttgart, Germany
Tel +49 711 1398 1377, Fax +49 711 866 1240
Mobile +49 171 247 6688
W.Skelton#SOLINET.com, www.SOLINET.com
--End text from "William H. Skelton" <W.Skelton#SOLINET.com> to sdlnews ---
For extra SDL Forum Society benefits join at <http://www.sdl-forum.org/Society/members.htm>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a23 : Thu May 09 2013 - 16:05:50 GMT