Bert Verhees wrote: > On Thursday 24 July 2008 17:29:41 Thomas Beale wrote: > >> > > Thanks, Thomas, for your reply. > What I am afraid of, is that, when allowing to NOT specify the rm-type name, > error-prone dadl-files can occur. Possibly an application receives erroneous > dadl's as a form of communication. > Also, when there is no doubt possible, when looking into the broader context, > > a routine, it has to analyze this broader context, can be difficult to write, > as I already said before, but the longer I think about it, the more difficult > it seems. > > Anyway, in my case, I will not allow not typed dadl's in the first, maybe > later. > > Thanks for thinking with me. > Bert > > > *Bert,
the dADL text is just one element of the system - the syntax is designed to be flexible. But there is nothing stopping you requirinng more than the syntax demands. - thomas *
