SV-BC Separate Compilation discussion 9/23/03

Attendees
00000000
09876654
21012012
36553928
00000000
33333333
aaaaaaaa Karen Pieper
aa--aaaa Randy Misustin
--a-a--a Dennis Brophy
-------a Danny Jacobi
aaaaaaaa Brad Pierce
a--aaa-a Dave Rich
-a----aa Francoise Martinolle
---a-aa- Matt Maidment
-a-a-a-- Tom Kiley
----a--- Johny Srouji
--aaa--- Jay Lawrence
aa-a---- Arturo Salz
-a-a---- Peter Flake
a------- Nikhil

We spent a lot of time discussing name collisions in the packages proposal.
Nikhil expressed a desire to go with import p; and to drop import p::*.
Randy would prefer to go with import p::* and to drop import p;
Dave, Arturo, and Brad prefer to go with both.  Both is the best compromise, 
so that is what we went with.

We then worked on adding the table to the proposal.

We need to add the new form of import, and and example of import
in the middle of a module after the table.

For Nikhil's 4 issues:

1)  Do we want to put modules in packages?  Francoise, Randy, Karen vote no.
Brad Dave abstains.  Nikhil votes yes.  We will not include modules in 
packages.

2)  Within a package, are nested references to imported packages exported 
from the package into an importing region?  We'll discuss this next week.

3)  If two imported packages both import a package X, is that an error?  No,
There is only one instantiation of a package and they both refer to that
instantiation.

4)  Should there be an error for any type conflicts?  The decision to include
both import x and import x::* allows the user the freedom to use whatever
coding style restrictions they feel are appropriate.

The next meeting is 9/30/03 at 8:30am Pacific.