Date: 22 Jan 1999 02:56:44 -0500
From: Tim Showalter <tjs+(_at_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu>
So let's dump the implicit keep. We're still arguing about it, no one
will ever understand it, it's hard to explain, it's hard to decide when
it shouldn't happen, and it's not going to save anyone.
Walter has bugged me about this and I think I was wrong. Part of my
reasoning was that FLAMES doesn't have an implicit keep. But FLAMES
*does* have an implicit keep in the standard function library, more or
less (it's in the cookbook fill-in-the-blank functions, but not in the
language itself).
I'd like to see the way keep is defined changed to be either Tony's
proposal, or what I believe Larry wants (zero actions == implicit
keep).
(FLAMES is the Filtering Language for the Anddrew MEsssaging System, our
legacy mail system. It's quite popular among those who learned to use
it.)
--
Tim Showalter <tjs+(_at_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu>