BTW, that is an inconsistent use of < .. > any how. Should we decide
to allow variations in the return type, the form ought to look different.
--Noi
>
> Thanks, Kurt. Just a comment about the syntax:
>
> > attribute end_condition : Expression; // Here type is Boolean
> > attribute init_procedure : Expression; // Here type is None
> > // stands for void.
>
> Why not write Expression<Boolean>? The way we are planning to handle
> expressions in the object system, the type of the return value of expressions
> is used for type checking.
>
> Pablo
>
>