From maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov Wed Feb 19 01:15:33 1997 Received: from altair.dfrc.nasa.gov ([130.134.34.72]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA19692 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 01:15:29 +0100 Received: by altair.dfrc.nasa.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA26089; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:15:10 -0800 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:15:10 -0800 Message-Id: <199702190015.QAA26089@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov> From: Richard Maine To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk cc: petra@tphys.uni-linz.ac.at Subject: Glossary entry for function result In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.92) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII WG5, I got an informal comment about the glossary definition of function result from a Dietmar Petrascheck (petra@tphys.uni-linz.ac.at). > 2.)Glossary, page 296, row 36: > function result (12.5.2.2): The data object that returns the value of > a function. > > Glossary, page 295, row 11: > data object(2.4.3.1): A data entity that is a constant, a variable or > a subobject of a constant. > > I would believe that these two definitions are contradictory. > would mean that on page 296 the data object has to be replaced by > data entity.... It appears to me that he is correct. Since we are doing at least one change between the DIS and the standard anyway, I'd propose to also make this one-word "typographical" change in the glossary, namely "object" -> "entity" in the glossary definition of function result. If this isn't accepted as a "typographical" correction, then its not worth holding the standard up for. Unless I hear objection, I'll plan to do this one-word fix. -- Richard Maine maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov