Jeremy Manson wrote,
> > Still, I'd be happy with "ordered before" too, so long as there are
> > defining words up front to the effect of: i is ordered before j iff
> > i happens before j, where "happens before" is as defined in the
> > spec.
> I think that the problem with this is that if they are going to have
> to understand happens before anyway, why introduce another term?
Presumably because "happens before" already means something outside of
the spec and people reading Doug's synopsis aren't necessarily going to
be giving the spec more than a quick scan?
> If you simply put the definition of happens-before in here (instead of
> the actual term), then if someone goes and looks in the spec, thye
> may get confused at the use of a different term.
I meant that the definition of "ordered before" should cite the spec,
not repeat it. If the synopsis includes the full definition then I
agree, it should just use "happens before".
JavaMemoryModel mailing list - http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:00:59 EDT