Re: Issue: ARRAY-TYPE-ELEMENT-TYPE-SEMANTICS (Version 9)

[masinter.pa@Xerox.COM]

The proposal contains the sentence

 'Eliminate the distinction between types "for declaration" and "for 
    discrimination".'

However, the distinction remains for the list form of the FUNCTION type
specifier, which is only valid "for declaration".

I don't think the proposal removes the list form of the FUNCTION type
specifier, or (alternatively, magically) allows the list form of the
FUNCTION type specifier to be used for discrimination. I think the sentence
needs to be qualified that it applies to COMPLEX and ARRAY and VECTOR type
specifiers.

I concur with the sentiment that would like to see the proposal amended to
remove UPGRADED-COMPLEX-PART-TYPE and UPGRADED-ARRAY-ELEMENT-TYPE, as they
are of so extremely limited utility and can be written trivially if really
necessary.

Stylisticly, this can be accomplished quickly if a bit awkwardly, by saying
"The proposal is written using the following two functions, although these
functions are not added to the standard."