🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <13011@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>In article <1741@tkou02.enet.dec.com> diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com (diamond@tkovoa) writes:
>>In article <13002@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>>>... interpretation of the standard; of course the
>>>interpretation should be exactly that and not some wild contradiction
>>>of what the standard actually says.
>>Huh?  Some of the interpretations already wildly contradict what the
>>standard actually says.  To be more precise, the standard says some
>>things that are wildly different from what was intended, and the
>>interpretations made a lot more sense.
>
>Name one.  There has been NO information bulletin so far, and only six
>official individual replies to interpretation requests, which I here
>summarize (disclaimer: this posting is NOT an official document):
>...

I thought there were more than six topics in one of your previous
postings, which was a very informative and helpful (though unofficial)
summary of interpretations.  (And I thank you for having posted that.)

Two of the interpretations, which were themselves very informative
and helpful, which wildly contradicted the standard, involved the
persistency of blue paint, and the prohibition of multiple definitions
of an external function when the function never occurs in an expression.

These two do not appear to be among the six in your present posting
(which I replaced by the ellipsis above).  Have they been "uninterpreted"?

-- 
Norman Diamond, Nihon DEC     diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com
Proposed group comp.networks.load-reduction:  send your "yes" vote to /dev/null.