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'.
-------

`