To: lorenz, wupc, kojarski
Subject: contradiction

I see a contradiction in our paper:

We say: "what is missing in AspectJ is a more expressive
advice language".

Then we present a more expressive pointcut language
but using the same advice language to solve the problem.

Please can you eliminate this contradiction.
What is missing in AspectJ is a join point model
for lexical pointcuts that can be used independently of the
dynamic join point model???

-- Karl

==================
As David said,
we define a join point model for the LoD. We should make 
it explicit what it is. Here is my proposal for section 3:

We use a join point model as follows:

1. Sets of join points: JP-objects in all JPTs

JPT = JP <children> List(JPT).
JP = <target> OBJ <args> List(OBJ) <returning> OBJ.

2. Mechanism to define sets of JP

Our pointcut language:

Primitives:
if ( e ), where e is an expression involving the fields of JP
and JPT and thisJoinPoint and thisEnclosingJoinPoint: selects
all JP in a given fixed JPT that satisfy property e.

Operators:
||, &&, !

3. Mechanism to define advice on a set of join points

declare warning: pointcut p: String s;

print the s for every join point selected by p.

-- Karl