(j3.2006) J3/12-nnn J3 interpretations letter ballot #26 aftermeeting 198

[Malcolm Cohen]

Van Snyder writes:
>          Since the only alternatives for <variable> are <designator>
>          and <expr>, it seems weird to have <variable> in the syntax
>          rule, and then a constraint that says it is required to be
>          <designator>, not <expr>.
...
>          If for some reason that doesn't work,

Obviously doesn't work because a <designator> is not necessarily a <variable>.

Use of <variable> with
Cxxx The <variable> shall be a <designator>.

is not obviously worse than
use of of <designator> with
Cxxx The <designator> shall not be a constant or a subobject of a constant.

> accept the proposed         repair.

I am somewhat boggled that this warrants voting NO with a comment that if your 
variation on the fix doesn't work (as it doesn't out of the box) then you vote 
YES (I presume that's what "accept the proposed repair" means).

Surely more appropriate to vote "C" saying you prefer alternative fix, ne?

Cheers,
-- 
................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.