🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2206@sdrc.COM> scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones) writes:
>In article <1992Nov2.200406.18152@ichips.intel.com>, bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>> It doesn't say directly that "foo" has array type (in the
>
>Sorry if the Standard is not clear enough for you

And well you should be.

>but "foo" does have array type.

And did I say otherwise?

>"The Standard is not a tutorial."

Nor apparently is it a sufficient medium for communicating
the requirements for conforming implementations and programs.

It lacks a great deal of the "communicating."


I am of course a little apologetic and more than a little
amused that the whole morass is due merely to my laziness
(which owed to the fact that I was dealing with something
more interesting, i.e. the meaning of "use" in the standard).

Jutta and Steve apparently discussed it already and I'd
like to know what's the full poop on it?  The exact definition 
can disambiguate several crucial areas of the standard.
Is/was there an attempt to get an interpretation?

				--Blair
				  "net.rule.number.two:  never
				   ask a stupid question without
				   waiting 45 minutes after eating."