🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1996Feb16.082224.16087@sq.com> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader)
writes: 
<snip>
   "It has been decided" refers to the official response to Defect
   Report 67, contained in Record of Response 2 and Technical Corri-
   gendum 2.  As far as I know, RR2/TC2 has still not been published,
   and I have no idea what changes may have been made in response to
   comments made through national bodies during balloting.

   In the draft version that was balloted on, it does state that some
   integral types can have unused bits; the term defined to refer to these
   bits is, unfortunately, "holes".  The draft states that they "do not
   participate in forming the value of an object"; that is, they must
   simply be ignored, rather than being possibly used for parity.

I think it would be far better to clarify it in a TC rather than
muddle it up with another RR: but, does a parity bit participate in
forming the `value' of an object? It certainly participates in the
validity of an object, which can be rephrased as it participates in
the existence of the value of the object, but does the word `value'
encompass the meaning `existence of value'? 

I think this should be clarified. I see your logic, but am not
completely convinced by it. (Maybe, that itself is bad news: when the
language of the standard gets burdened so much that I can see your
logic, and not accept it, maybe, then it is time to make things
clearer in the standard itself.)

Cheers
Tanmoy
--
tanmoy@qcd.lanl.gov(128.165.23.46) DECNET: BETA::"tanmoy@lanl.gov"(1.218=1242)
Tanmoy Bhattacharya O:T-8(MS B285)LANL,NM87545 H:#9,3000,Trinity Drive,NM87544
Others see <gopher://yaleinfo.yale.edu:7700/00/Internet-People/internet-mail>,
<http://alpha.acast.nova.edu/cgi-bin/inmgq.pl>or<ftp://csd4.csd.uwm.edu/pub/
internetwork-mail-guide>. -- <http://nqcd.lanl.gov/people/tanmoy/tanmoy.html>
fax: 1 (505) 665 3003   voice: 1 (505) 665 4733    [ Home: 1 (505) 662 5596 ]