(j3.2006) Seven papers from 204 that were not processed.

[Malcolm Cohen]

According to my cryptic notes (these are not necessarily self-explanatory!).

>14-137r1 was reported in the minutes for Monday as "No further action."
>It's not clear whether that meant "Not in this revision" or "Not at
>meeting 204."

"No further action" means "No further action"...

>  It would remove a restriction on VALUE dummy arguments in
>pure procedures.  Does it create a new feature?

"current constraints needed to prevent behind-the-scenes pointer assignment 
violating purity."

(Personally I think this means there is a defect in our description of C_PTR, 
but I've not found time to investigate fully and raise an interp.)

>14-154r3 was reported in the minutes for Friday as being "in the post
>for the next meeting."  This is interp F08/0107.

Correct.

>14-161 was reported in the minutes for Monday and Wednesday as "No
>further action."  It's not clear whether that meant "Not in this
>revision" or "Not at meeting 204."  It would impose a restriction that
>the value of CPTR in a reference to C_F_POINTER not be the C address of
>an entity proscribed as a pointer target in a pure procedure.  Does it
>create a new feature?

"editorial issues referred /EDIT, rest of paper unnecessary"

You can badger the editor about it again at m205.  (I probably thought the 
editorial changes unnecessary and said so, but my notes are silent, so I'm 
willing to take another look.)

>14-169 was referred to HPC on Monday, but in minutes for Friday it says
>"is still be processed - there will be no action on 14-169 at this
>meeting."  14-248 is a revised version, with edits referring to
>14-007r2.

Right.

>14-170 was reported in the minutes for Monday as "No further action."
>It's not clear whether that meant "Not in this revision" or "Not at
>meeting 204."

My notes actually say NATM rather than NFA.  (i.e. Not At This Meeting).

>  It addresses a question about subobjects and pointers.
>Does it address a non-problem, or did we simply not have time to process
>it?

As I recall, it was unclear whether there was a problem at all, and clear that 
it was going to take a long time chasing references around the standard to see 
whether we were chasing a phantom or a real wording bug.

Also it did not seem to be giving rise to actual problems in practice, so lower 
priority than e.g. other interps or indeed the Unresolved Technical Issues 
raised by the editor.

>14-171 was reported in the minutes for Monday as "No further action."
>It's not clear whether that meant "Not in this revision" or "Not at
>meeting 204."  This addressed what appear to be numerous improper uses
>of "subcomponent."

Same as 14-170.

In principle I don't mind reconsidering them at m205, in practice I suspect we 
could have other higher-priority stuff to do, at least earlier in the meeting. 
We should at least try to have a look at them Thursday afternoon to see whether 
we should invest more time and effort...

>14-172 was reported in the minutes for Wednesday as "will be
>reconsidered as an interp".

That agrees with my notes.  As I recall, it was last thing on Wednesday, and 
/INTERP ran out of time to process it on Thursday, so it needs to come forward 
to 205.

>14-169 has already been recast as paper 14-248 for 205.  Which of the
>others should be updated?

154r3 might or might not need updating, but it needs to go on the list of papers 
for this meeting so we don't forget it!

I think the others are all accounted for (you can come and talk to me sometime 
about 161, and the need to do an interp instead of 172 is mentioned in the 
editor's report).

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