(j3.2006) other entities in standard modules

Malcolm Cohen malcolm
Thu Feb 1 01:15:13 EST 2007

Hi Stan,

Whitlock, Stan said:
> I agree that [359:28-29] means that processors can extend intrinsic
> modules.  But I read [364:22-23] as saying the IEEE intrinsic modules
> define these five derived types but I don't read it to prohibit a
> processor from adding other public derived types to these intrinsic
> modules.

Well, it says they define five derived types, not "at least five",
not "the following five", just "five".

Just like a "2-wheeled motor vehicle" is not normally understood to include
cars, this kind of language normally excludes defining more than five.

This isn't 100% unambiguous, which is why I carefully said "implies".

> I may be erring on the implementer's side, seeing no prohibition,
> instead of on the language lawyer side, seeing no permission.

Bill Long said:
something about defining additional constants, which isn't affected
by the misstatement I was complaining about.  It might well be affected
by other misstatements though!

I don't think any of the implementors actually on J3 are going to be
confused by this, so it probably doesn't need fixing via interp, but
it certainly should be fixed in F2008.

BTW, can I add my plea to Dick's about fixing the default reply address?
I don't really want multiple copies of replies to my postings.

........................Malcolm Cohen (malcolm at nag-j.co.jp), Nihon NAG, Tokyo.

More information about the J3 mailing list