(j3.2006) J3/15-244

[Malcolm Cohen]

John Reid writes:
<<<
I don't like J3/15-244 at all. It is tearing into the TR before it has even 
been published. I think all that is needed is to delete "Otherwise, it is 
assigned the value -1." from the description of COUNT.
>>>

Not so.  The description of EVENT_QUERY as an atomic subroutine is 
fundamentally flawed.  It does not have an ATOM argument, and does not do 
anything "atomically" with respect to the execution of other atomic 
subroutines.  Describing it as an atomic subroutine thus involves several 
internal contradictions.

The cleanest way to fix this is to simply describe the required properties 
of EVENT_QUERY directly, as 15-244 attempts, and not try to shoehorn it into 
the Atomic Subroutine category which it manifestly does not match.

This is not "tearing into" anything, it is fixing errors.  There is no 
technical effect from describing it correctly (viz not as an atomic 
subroutine) beyond avoiding contradictions in the description.  And since we 
have two different statements of what value is assigned to COUNT, the 
specific one in EVENT_QUERY is obviously the one which is "truest" to the 
soon-to-be-published TS.

Cheers,
-- 
..........................Malcolm.