> From: xxxxxx@freenetproject.org

    > On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 07:26:17PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
    > >     > > Um.... given those specifications, which appear to be effectively
    > >     > > identical, why would a client of this (meta-)interface ever use o=
    > ne of
    > >     > > these procedures in preference to the other?   Therefore why does=
    >  the
    > >     > > interface need both?

    > >     > Because code may be written initially that accepts an ordered=3D20
    > >     > collection or sequence, and may wish to pass an unordered bag in th=

    > >     > future.  This allows that to occur without error.  Thank you for th=

    > >     > constructive discussion.

    > > Well, gosh.  It doesn't seem to me like a minor point.   It doesn't
    > > seem like a problem that is really fixed by a quick tweak.  It seems
    > > to me to point to some deep conceptual errors in the whole framework
    > > of 44.

    > Hmm?  I just pointed out how its very much by design to have those=20
    > functions behave how they do. =20

You have an interface spec that gives two names to one specification.
Hello?!?!  Anybody home?

Sorry, but, if you're writing a standards document, you can't just
count on people to "get the [non-explicit] idea".

-t