(j3.2006) RECURSIVE

[Van Snyder]

On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 09:23 +0900, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
> <<<
> I believe it was made quite clear recently that explanatory notes, no
> matter how helpful they might be, are not welcome.
> >>>
> 
> Or perhaps the suggested notes were not explanatory and not helpful.
> 
> I am more in favour of improving exposition than most, but improving 
> exposition does not consist of adding layer upon layer of dubious metaphor 
> and complicated analogy.

I do not understand how a forward reference to germane material that is
25 pages distant, and for the existence of which no clue exists in the
normative text of the subclause, is not explanatory, not helpful, or
"dubious metaphor and complicated analogy."

I am referring in particular to the edit that was proposed for [211:42+]
in 15-226, and was rejected despite a plea for its reinstatement because
Malcolm said "I object" and nothing more.

This edit was requested by a colleague who uses the standard for
reference, not as a design specification for a processor.  This
colleague has not read the entire standard, and even if he had it would
be unlikely that he would know the relationships of its parts as
intimately as we do.  He is curious to know why the edit was rejected.

If the requested edit is not explanatory and not helpful, then certainly
notes 9.2, 9.9, 9.17, 9.19, and especially 9.44, are equally not
explanatory and not helpful, and ought to be deleted.

> 
> Cheers,