>From dougo@ccs.neu.edu Fri Aug  1 17:46:04 1997
>From: Doug Orleans <dougo@ccs.neu.edu>
>To: Karl Lieberherr <lieber@ccs.neu.edu>
>Cc: dem@ccs.neu.edu
>Subject: Re: more adaptive programs
>
>Karl Lieberherr writes:
> > I think you are right and we should only give a warning when
> > a strategy edge defines 0 paths in the class graphs. If the additional
> > flexibility becomes confusing we can always go back and strengthen
> > the level of the error messages.
> > 
> > What do the experts think about this? Any strong opinions?
>
>Currently I print an error if not every node in the strategy graph is
>also in the traversal graph, but it is a non-fatal error.  (Also, the
>error message isn't very informative-- I'll fix this eventually.)
>I'm not sure whether it should be a fatal error-- Boaz has a good
>point, in that sometimes you want to declare a strategy but never use
>it; if you do use it, the javac compiler will give an error.  However,
>this is a somewhat cryptic way to signal an error that, in most cases,
>can be detected by Demeter.  For now, I think we should leave it
>non-fatal, and see what the beta customers think.  Also, when we are
>able to parse Java directly, we can determine for ourselves if a
>strategy is used or not.
>
>--Doug
>

I agree with your statement and solution. 

-- Karl