🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <30538@watmath.waterloo.edu> datanguay@watmath.waterloo.edu (David A
>I disagree about the second sentence.

Again, you dropped context, this time from my posting instead of the
Standard.  I explained what the "assigned to" was all about.  You're
trying to give it meaning that was never intended, and by the "Could
a reasonable person, in good faith, really misunderstand our intention?"
test (which was one criterion for whether or not wording changes were
called for during evaluation of public-review comments), I would have
to say that the existing wording, taken in toto, is clear enough.

I do know what you're saying, I just don't think it's a reasonable
way to attempt to interpret the specifications.  You have to work
really hard to force your strange pointer-rounding implementation
model to "fit" the specs, and even then it doesn't fit very well.

It doesn't seem to be a real problem in the spec to me.