[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: EXIT-EXTENT (Version 4)
- To: "Steve Bacher (Batchman)" <SEB1525@draper.com>
- Subject: Re: Issue: EXIT-EXTENT (Version 4)
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 8 Dec 88 21:15 PST
- Cc: cl-cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: "Steve Bacher (Batchman)" <SEB1525@draper.com>'s message of Thu, 8 Dec 88 14:24 EST
I was pretty sure I could derive "If an implementation conforms to
if EXIT-EXTENT:MINIMAL is adopted will said implementation be correct or
in error?" from "all currently valid implementations
will continue to be valid with the MINIMAL proposal".
My derivation presumes that MEDIUM is already currently valid, which I can
infer from the "Cost to users" section.
We have and will continue to take "is an error" in the narrow sense that
all bets are off, that the standard makes no constraints on what
implementations do in such a situation, and that no valid program will do
such a thing. This has been an assumption in most of the cleanups.
Do you think we need a new writeup? How should it change?
I was thinking I could add to
"All currently valid implementations
will continue to be valid with the MINIMAL proposal." the assertion that
this includes implementations that conform to MEDIUM.
I'm running out of time to produce new versions of writeups; does this need
change to be clear to people voting on it?