Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost)

"Brian Selzer" <brian_at_selzer-software.com> wrote:

>"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message
>news:%qgVh.89055$6m4.56691_at_pd7urf1no...

[snip]

>> Anyway, at the risk of being too long-winded, I must say that I object to
>> definitions that imply how a phenomenon such as transactions must be
>> implemented, even though I realize that many people these days don't
>> consider a "definition" to be a definition unless it tells them what to
>> do.

>I'm not sure I understand your objection. I was just trying to point out
>that a set of operations evaluated in one order may produce a different
>result than the same set of operations evaluated in another. If the order
>is specified, then there's no question which result was desired.

     I think the objection is the forcing: there should be a defined result of a transaction, but *how* it occurs is irrelevant. It might be: "The result of a transaction shall be as if the transaction statements were executed in the specified order." Note that this does not require that the statements be done in order, or even that they be done. The implementation might be able to optimise.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

     I have preferences.
     You have biases.
     He/She has prejudices.