From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Wed Sep 3 17:10:49 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h83FAnII003393 for sc22wg5-domo; Wed, 3 Sep 2003 17:10:49 +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 mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h83F9KCp003365 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2003 17:10:44 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov) Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Wed, 3 Sep 2003 08:05:56 -0700 Received: from altair.dfrc.nasa.gov ([130.134.20.211]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71686U2500L200S0V35) with ESMTP id gov for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2003 08:09:03 -0700 Received: by altair.dfrc.nasa.gov (Postfix, from userid 201) id B7ABD3510F; Wed, 3 Sep 2003 08:09:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Maine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <16214.1037.622037.281571@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov> Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 08:09:01 -0700 To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: (SC22WG5.2959) Informal letter ballot on the draft FCD In-Reply-To: <200309022305.h82N5pVj094870@dkuug.dk> References: <200309022305.h82N5pVj094870@dkuug.dk> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 12) "Portable Code" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov writes: > More comments on the draft FCD: > > [45:21] It appears that one can create an extended type that is not an > extensible type, because a conspiracy of EXTENDS and BIND is not prohibited. > The reference to SEQUENCE is obscure. Replace C429 by > > "C429 (R429) If EXTENDS appears, neither BIND(C) nor a shall > appear." > > or > > "C429 (R429) If EXTENDS appears, neither BIND(C) nor SEQUENCE (4.5.1.2) shall > appear." Disagree. C1503 covers this. Debate as to whether this belongs better in C15 or C04 (or both places) was already had. I regard this as an innapropriate time and venue to revisit such debates. It isn't an actual error and you'd be suggesting that the vetting subgroup override decisions debated at length and passed by formal vote. The proposed changes in regard to SEQUENCE are wordsmithing, which I don't think we should be doing. (P.S. Maybe I should have pushed harder to call BIND(C) types a particular kind of sequence types. Would have avoided multiple confusions IMO. I only suggested it and had it resoundly rejected about 3 times. Oh well, far too late now, and it isn't actually wrong, though it may well have made other things wrong where we forgot to account for it in yet other places.) > [60:6] begs the question "Are there other extensible types?" because it's > backward. Replace it by > > "An <> is a nonsequence derived type that does not have the > BIND attribute." > > [60:7-8] beg the questions "Are there other base types? Are there other > extended types?" Replace "An extensible ... <> by > > "A <> is an extensible type that does not have the EXTENDS > attribute. An <> is a type that has the EXTENDS attribute. > > ([60:6-8] say "All A are B" when they should say "All B are A".) More wordsmithing. Note that I don't necessarily disagree that some of the wordsmithing proposals are improvements - I just don't think this is an appropriate time to do wordsmithing at all. Wordsmithing *DOES* sometimes result in technical errors; it has happened before, even with Van's wordsmithing in particular (and with mine). I think this a completely inappropriate time to just propose every idea that comes to mind to see if there are objections. We need to restrict ourselves to things that are wrong (and they better not be big things that are wrong, or we have a problem). You may assume that I object to any proposed change justified by claims that it is better exposition. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; Richard.Maine@nasa.gov | experience comes from bad judgment. | -- Mark Twain