[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Proposed Wording Change to the Error Terminology (II)
- To: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
- Subject: Proposed Wording Change to the Error Terminology (II)
- From: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 88 15:04 PST
- Cc: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- Fcc: BD:>Gregor>mail>outgoing-mail-2.text
- In-reply-to: The message of 21 Mar 88 13:29 PST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
- Line-fold: no
Date: 21 Mar 88 13:29 PST
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
\item{\bull} No implementation is allowed to extend the semantics of the
\OS\ to this situation.
Well this just solves the problem by being silent on the crucial issue.
Its hard, but I think we can do better. What it we said something like:
No implementation is allowed to extend the semantics of the \OS\ to this
situation. This means that while a given implementation may document
its behavior under the situation, no valid program should count on that
behavior.
During the X3J13 meeting, people were trying to draw a distinction
between documenting what happened in the unspecified situation and
featurizing that situation. I am trying to do something similar here
without resorting to saying anything as gross as `featurize'.
-------