From martin@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov Thu Feb 18 07:08:05 1993 Received: from ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA09380 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Fri, 19 Feb 1993 00:07:51 +0100 Received: by ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA21214; Thu, 18 Feb 93 15:08:05 PST Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 15:08:05 PST From: martin@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov (Jeanne Martin) Message-Id: <9302182308.AA21214@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov> To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Subject: Defect Ballot Questions X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 To: WG5 From: Jeanne Martin Subject: Defect Ballot Questions I have had two inquiries regarding the ballot: Lawrie Schonfelder wants to know why item 39 was withdrawn and Aurelio Pollicini wants to know if item 98 should be on the ballot because its status in N865 is "X3J3 draft response". Item 39: This item sould not have appeared on the ballot because there was an X3J3 paper related to it that did not get processed at X3J3 meeting 123. This paper (92-228) proposes suggested edits to the standard as part of item 39. The paper was processed at meeting 124 and item 39 changed. The answer in 39 remains the same but some of the edits in 92-228 were added to clarify the intent of the standard. Not all of the edits in 92-228 were added because of the change to TARGET dummy argument association detailed in new defect item 125 (which you will see in due course). Nevertheless, the item 39 in N864 is not identical to the item 39 that X3J3 has approved, and consequently item 39 is withdrawn from the WG5 ballot. Item 98: Aurelio is correct, item 98 should not have been on the WG5 ballot, however it did pass the earlier X3J3 ballot and was held back solely on the basis of comments accompanying the returned ballots. At meeting 124, X3J3 decided to go ahead with this item, so there is no reason (if it passes the WG5 ballot), it cannot be forwarded to SC22. Therefore, item 98 is not withdrawn from the WG5 ballot.