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

[Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>]

re: In any case, the fact that the standard ALLOWS implementation A to have a
    funny upgrade strategy does not make it impossible for implementation B to
    use reasonable compiler optimizations.

As long as implementation A doesn't pay any attention to the declarations
that implementation B is concerned about, then it is moot even to
consider "funny" upgrades.  If A does pay attention to the declarations,
then those that work in B will break in A.

For the life of me, I can't understand why you are pressing this issue,
since it's pointless to write something into the standard that A won't
use and B can't use.  So why not leave it simply at the state where we
specify what B _can_ use, and what A doesn't care about.


-- JonL --