[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

DRAFT Issue: TEST-NOT-IF-NOT (Version 2)

[X3J13 removed; Chapman added]

    Date: Tue, 18 Oct 88 21:44:37 PDT
    From: Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>

    It would certainly be acceptable to "deprecate" the use of ...;
    this ought to be an editorial discretion, rather than requiring
    lots of cl-cleanup time.

It can't be an editorial discretion. No slight to Kathy intended, but
she just plain cannot be permitted to make unilateral arbitrary decisions
about what we might or might want to throw out of the language in some
subsequent standard. She must be able to justify any change from the
status quo on the basis of some technical backup provided by this or
another committee. Without input from X3J13, she is chartered to do
no more than modify the presentation. She cannot, of her own accord,
change the semantics and she cannot make claims about changes that will
happen in the future (which is what deprecation is about) without risking
amazing grief when it comes time to review her document.

Nothing prohibits us from making any proposal be to simply deprecate
something (and eventually we'll have to define technically what that
will mean). But it -does- require cleanup (or whatever committee) time
to prepare a vote for X3J13.