Re: Distributed shared channels (via SEMAPHOREs)

[Richard Beton <rdb@xxxxxxxxxx>]

One small question nags at me:

Why is the data record syntax in occam2.1

DATA TYPE SOMETHING
  RECORD
    TYPE1 element1, element2:
    TYPE2 element3:
:

different from the channel type syntax

CHAN TYPE COMMS
  CHAN OF REQUEST request:
  CHAN OF REPLY reply:
:

Isn't the 'RECORD' keyword superfluous, and therefore prone to
Occam's razor? It is incongruent: syntactic congruence is a 
good feature in a language - it has the benefit of being easy 
to remember.

Just a small query. Now I'll read the rest of Peter's post.

Rick
-- 
              Richard Beton BSc MInstP CPhys
      Roke Manor Research, Romsey, Hampshire SO51 0ZN
-------  Standard disclaimer about my own views etc  -------
           See http://www1.roke.co.uk/WHR/WHR.html