No Problem!

Martin Vaughn
Demand Wave Solutions
1015 South Wall Street
Suite G
Calhoun, GA 30701
USA
[log in to unmask]
706-625-4898 extension 12
fax: 706-625-4473
__________________
The contents of this message represent the opinions of the employee and
not
necessarily the opinions of Demand Wave Solutions.




-----Original Message-----
From: OpenMPE Support Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
VANCE,JEFF (HP-Cupertino,ex1)
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: CI functions clarification


Hi all,

As you know we are implementing the "CI Functions" SIB request. The
engineer responsible for the coding and design details (Hariprasad)
discovered that the CI's evaluator treats "." and "/" as token
separators. The "/" isn't surprising since "/" is the division
operator, and expressions such as a/b are perfectly valid. The "."
is more surprising, but since there are no predefined CI functions
with a "." in their name, and there are no real values, and there are
no CI methods, and there are no CI structures, maybe it just turned
out that way.

Anyway, it is better from an eliminating regression failures point of
view if we do NOT change the evaluator parsing rules in the
implementation of CI functions. However that would preclude a CI
function from being qualified. For example, Myfunc.grp(), ./MyFunct(),
/bin/functions/MyFunc() MyDir/MyFunc() all would NOT be legal function
names.  This is inconsistent with the CI in that it allows qualified
script names. However, the CI also supports unqualified POSIX names as
script names. For example: myScript(case sensitive), my_Script, my-Script,
etc. are all legal script names and can be found in the POSIX namespace.

So my question is would the restriction of DISallowing qualified
user function names be a problem for you, and if so, please give
me some examples.

Thanks in advance,
 Jeff Vance, vCSY