Re: Motion P1788/M0061:REvisedFlavorsText -- YES
Am Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:40:38 +0000
schrieb John Pryce <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> Vincent, P1788
>
> My apologies for taking so long to respond to this.
>
> On 2014 Feb 28, at 14:35, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> (1)
> > §7.5.3, 1st paragraph: "For each flavor-specific operation, the flavor
> > shall give a rule to determine when an implementation shall provide a
> > T-version." but what's the point of defining a Level 1 flavor-specific
> > operation but not provide it at Level 2? In any case, I don't think
> > that this sentence is useful.
>
> My sentence is poorly written, but I think something should be said. We
> have one of these meta-questions: Should the standard say a flavor
> SHALL, or SHOULD, say what types one of its implementations SHALL, or
> SHOULD, provide for a flavor-specific operation?
> VL says "...what's the point of defining a Level 1 flavor-specific
> operation but not provide it at Level 2?" None, but shouldn't the
> flavor-designer give guidance to the implementer?
>
> IMO the flavor SHALL state something, either a SHALL or a SHOULD, about
> this. Views please, if it's agreed to include something, then please
> offer better wording.
I agree. Especially for standard flavors there might be multiple
independent implementations. Therefore it doesn't seem too far fetched
for me to have flavor-specific functions (at Level 1) that are
recommended but do not have to be provided by an implementation (at Level
2).
For this it could be "[...] the flavor shall specify whether an
implementation shall or should provide a T-version." Are there other
scenarios that we have to cover?
Cheers,
Christian