issue DYNAMIC-EXTENT-FUNCTION, version 1

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

re: It's my belief that a close reading of the GLS and KMP amendment to
    DYNAMIC-EXTENT (which was passed out at the meeting last week and
    was unanimously adopted by X3J13 provides an unambiguous answer to
    each of your concerns.

Well, the difficulty centers on how one interprets the word "identical"
in Sandra's proposal.  I would invite you to make your interpretation,
and put it into unambiguous words, explicitly in this proposal.

By the bye, do you agree that a single declaration name -- DYNAMIC-EXTENT
--  is satisfactory for both contexts?   A reasonable alternative might 
simply be to amend the previously passed proposal to include the function 
context.



-- JonL --