James M Snell wrote:
Heh, this is fun. If you think the spec needs to be fixed, it would help to have a concrete example of what you'd consider "fixed". At this point, I have zero idea what changes you'd like to see. If you do not wish or intend to offer anything concrete, even just a strawman example to illustrate the point, there's nothing I can do to "fix" it and this entire thread has been pointless.
Hmm, I haven't followed the arguments in detail; but this does not make sense.
You seem to have an implicit assumption that something must be done, and hat doing something that is broken is better than doing nothing. I disagree.
If the spec is broken (I don't know whether it is or not) it should not be issued whether or not a replacement is available or even possible.
It is not necessary to provide a better alternative to demonstarte that a spec is broken.
-- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published! http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/