Proposed Wording Change to the Error Terminology (II)

[David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

    Date: 21 Mar 88  1329 PST
    From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>

    When you read this, take out your chapter 1 and read the rest of the
    section on error terminology. The suggestions about using the term
    ``portable'' as part of the definition of ``undefined'' seem to have been
    made under the influence of amnesia regarding the rest of the section.

Not so.  I put that suggestion there specifically to get you to
articulate more clearly the difference between this "undefined"
situation and the "may be extended" situation that follows it in
chapter 1.

    \item{\bull} No implementation is allowed to extend the semantics of the
    \OS\ to this situation.

This new wording is the vaguest yet, which I assume was your intention.
Maybe that's best, I don't know.  It doesn't seem to put to rest the
objections that arose in the X3J13 meeting.

I suppose we could always ask X3J13 to appoint a separate committee for this,
and then use whatever terminology they come up with in the CLOS document.
That way I wouldn't have to feel any responsibility to try to help.

Maybe Sonya will have a good suggestion for how to word this, in two
weeks when she gets back from vacation.