(j3.2006) Interp 64 question

[Bill Long]

Malcolm Cohen wrote:

>
>
>  
>
>>There are 
>>interface bodies in the above example and that is the point, that the 
>>intended change in the interp is problematic because  C1212 does apply 
>>directly to <proc-component-def-stmt>s.
>>    
>>
>
>Well, now we're getting somewhere.
>Though if I was trying to interpret standard text I'd want to have
>a second and third and fourth look at it before deciding either that
>it was right (and my intuition about what should be allowed was wrong)
>or that it was in error.
>
>But, this interp has already failed.  We already know it is in error.
>Perhaps Bill is intending to submit a revised version?
>
>I've said this before - if you are wanting to interpret the standard, 
>depending on j3-meeting-passed but not j3-letter-ballot-passed interps
>is risky enough, but how can you get anything from a failed interp?
>It's already failed!  We ALREADY know that it is probably WRONG!
>
>And sure, the proposed wrong edit is probably wrong for even more reasons
>than were given in the letter ballot.  Didn't I say that last time someone
>asked this kind of question of "known to be wrong" wording in a failed
>interp?
>  
>

My interest in interp 64 was prompted by the reason it failed the vote.  
The one NO vote contended that the proposed edit was OK, but that it did 
not go far enough.  I think that even the one edit proposed was not a 
good idea. 

Cheers,
Bill

-- 
Bill Long                                   longb at cray.com
Fortran Technical Support    &              voice: 651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development         fax:   651-605-9142
Cray Inc., 1340 Mendota Heights Rd., Mendota Heights, MN, 55120

            

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://j3.scs.gmu.edu/pipermail/j3/attachments/20070122/ff4b3766/attachment.html