Hi Jeff,

It sounds as though you are proposing that any CI functions must be in the
logon group.  Is that correct?

Jim

Jim Kramer
Director of Research and Development
Lund Performance Solutions
Phone: (541) 812-7600 | Email: [log in to unmask]
Fax:   (541) 812-7612 | Web:   www.lund.com
Yahoo: jhkramer_1     | AOL:   jh kramer 1

NOTICE:  This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
information.  If you are not the intended recipient or believe that you may
have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender
indicating that fact and delete the copy you received.  In addition, you
should not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the
information.  Thank you.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: OpenMPE Support Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
> VANCE,JEFF (HP-Cupertino,ex1)
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 9:59 PM
> 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