Re: Proposed disposition of comments
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:50:14 +0200 Vincent wrote, replying to John:
> On 2015-04-15 07:52:21 +0000, John Pryce wrote:
> > The last sentence is as suggested by Vincent & Michel, instead of
> > "... Its value is x_com."
> > which would be more sensible.
>
> It should be "Its value is x_com." otherwise this would change ...
Earlier Vincent had in fact suggested:
| Its value is x_com, or, in a single-flavor implementation that does
| not support "com", newDec(x).
However, what about those other places identified by Vincent that
imply unviversal support for the "com" decoration? This means that
the optionality offered by 8.3 is still an inconsistency!
But perhaps we should let sleeping dogs sleep, never mind their tail.
One point mentioned by Vincent was 7.1 (d), but that's in a summary,
with details given later, so its not a requirement on its own.
Another was the NOTE following 8.3, which again is not normative.
More problematic perhaps is the last sentence of the 1st paragraph of
the "overview" in 9.7.1:
"The string *com* shall denote the decoration *com* in all flavors."
(It's just an overview -- but it says "shall".)
This is in addition to "if decorated it has the decoration *com*" in
the 4th paragraph (2nd on page 30), already quoted by Vincent. This
seems to just state a fact; there is no "shall" here.
What could a standards lawyer do with this situation?
Michel.
---Sent: 2015-04-15 14:07:38 UTC