From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Tue Sep 21 11:25:18 2004 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-domo Delivered-To: sc22wg5-domo@ghz.klid.dk Received: by ghz.klid.dk (Postfix, from userid 521) id C62DA37607; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:25:18 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from dkuug.dk (ptah.dkuug.dk [195.215.30.66]) by ghz.klid.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB9A037605 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:25:16 +0200 (CET DST) Received: from balin.rl.ac.uk (balin.rl.ac.uk [130.246.135.155]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id i8L9MdjH030027 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:22:44 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk) X-RAL-MFrom: X-RAL-Connect: Received: from jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202]) by balin.rl.ac.uk (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i8L9PqrF005785; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:25:52 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i8L9Q087030138; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:26:01 +0100 Message-ID: <414FF3A8.7000608@rl.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:26:00 +0100 From: John Reid Reply-To: j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk Organization: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.3170) Last minute sanity check on Modules TR References: <20040920184923.1154837607@ghz.klid.dk> In-Reply-To: <20040920184923.1154837607@ghz.klid.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 X-Spam-Score: 0 () Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: > The Modules TR has been balloted and accepted for publication. I'm > preparing to send it to Sally Seitz at ANSI. She has requested a few > changes in the Foreword. I assume all of that is acceptable to J3 > and WG5. Probably. I did my best to get the correct boiler-plate. Either I failed, or it has changed. I think we have to go along with what they want, as for the standard itself. > I have just realized, however, that we have introduced a situation > wherein the lexical analysis of a statement depends upon its context, > at least in fixed form. Malcolm has answered this from a technical point of view, but there is also a matter of principle. We have voted this in, so it should be published. It is recognized that defects may become apparent and there is a mechanism for dealing with them. Both the present TRs were revised. Cheers, John.