From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Thu Jul 31 10:43:36 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h6V8haR9073227 for sc22wg5-domo; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:43:36 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from fecit.fr ([195.25.240.221]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h6V8hUEc073222 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:43:31 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from waveren@fujitsu.fr) Received: from door.fecit.fr (door.fecit.fr [195.25.240.200]) by fecit.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA14383; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:39:57 +0200 Received: (from tis-mta@localhost) by door.fecit.fr (8.12.1/8.12.1) id h6V8hGnq004097; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:43:16 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: door.fecit.fr: tis-mta set sender to using -f Received: from (ndhc20.math.tu-dresden.de [141.30.71.189]) by door.fecit.fr via smap (V2.1) id xma029020; Thu, 31 Jul 03 10:43:15 +0200 Message-ID: <3F28D63F.7A2900D@fujitsu.fr> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:41:35 +0200 From: Matthijs van Waveren Organization: Fujitsu Systems Europe Ltd X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Maine CC: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2910) Nagging Doubts References: <200307272128.h6RLSv3F046000@dkuug.dk> <200307291538.h6TFcfBZ059507@dkuug.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk Dear Richard, Thank you for your comments. They are on the table of WG5 in Dresden with paper number N1565. Regards, Matthijs van Waveren Richard Maine wrote: > > Kurt W Hirchert writes: > > From: Kurt W. Hirchert ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5/N15xx > > Subject: Nagging Doubts 24 Jul 2003 > > I won't try to address the meat of this paper. I haven't studied it > well enough yet to do a good job of that. > > I wish to note only that I do *NOT* consider these to be "minor" > technical changes (much less "very minor"). I see these as > significant technical questions that we have absolutely no business > in changing in a draft that becomes a FCD. There is new syntax here. > There are changes in definitions of things that could affect stuff > all over the standard (type compatibility). > > If we try anything so foolish, we will get it wrong. Kurt argues that > we have gotten several of these things wrong. Perhaps he is correct, > but I believe that in making a last-minute change we would break more > things than we would fix. The term "last-minute" understates things. > It is far past the last minute. > > I don't think this is something that should have been distributed > "some weeks ago"; I'd say more like a year ago. > > Although Kurt describes these as decisions made at the recent joint > meeting, most of them look like things that have been around a long > time to me. In fact, I'm having trouble identifying any related > decisions made at the last meeting; perhaps I missed something, but > this material does not look like fixes of decisions made at the > last meeting to me. We did make lots of decisions at the last > meeting, and I think that includes mistakes that need fixing, but > I'm having trouble making the connection with the questions of this > paper. > > The reallocating assignment is part of the TR, for example. The only > recent changes relating to it have to do with applying it to extra > cases; Kurt's concerns seem addressed more at the basic functionality > as described in the TR than to those extra cases. > > The function side effect question is far from new and although C > interop is new, it isn't new to the joint meeting. This one can get > very subtle; I'd bet that if we try to say anything of subtsance on it > now, it will be nonsensical in at least some cases and wil result in > interp questions. > > Perhaps these are all thing that we really need to fix before going > out with an FCD. I defer to WG5 on that question. However, I > strongly feel that if we make changes of this order, we should > slip the schedule by at least 6 months. I feel it irresponsible > to make such technical changes directly into the FCD. If we put out > an FCD that has technical flaws because of after-the-last-minute > changes, then it will slip our schedule by a lot more than 6 months > (my understanding is that it kicks us back to the CD stage). > > Of course, I have to be suspicious that if we slip the schedule by > 6 months, we will just get a bunch more technical changes 6 months > from now. > > Are we ready for FCD or not? If we need to make these kind of changes, > then we aren't ready for it. To me, that is the most fundamental > question here. > > -- > Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; > Richard.Maine@nasa.gov | experience comes from bad judgment. > | -- Mark Twain