[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Issue - 62 - Proposal to Vote
I would like to make a minor change to the "mathematical" formulation. Point 2 is too strict; the English version is ok. If a serializable scope has an event handler associated with it, no enclosed scope nor a scope in the body of the event handler can be serializable. If a non-serializable scope has an event handler associated with it, an enclosed scope as well as a scope in the body of the event handler can be serializable. I hope that's the English equivalent of the following: Let's assume a scope S, an event handler E associated with S, a scope S-S that is part of S, and a scope S-E that is part of E. Then the following rules apply 1. If S is marked variableAccessSerializable="yes", then neither scope S-S nor scope S-E can be marked with variableAccessSerializable ="yes". 2. If scope S is marked variableAccessSerializable="no", scope S-E and scope S-S can be marked variableAccessSerializable="yes" Cheers, dieter
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]