🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct14.200405.6014@athena.mit.edu>, scs@adam.mit.edu (Steve Summit) writes:
> However, the only statement that suggests a strict identity
> of the two forms appears in an example [sec. 3.5.7, p. 75,
> lines 24-29], and is thus not part of the standard.

Nonetheless, this clearly shows the committee's intent.  As much as we
all wish that the standard were complete, concise, and correct, those
of us who wrote it are only human and suffer from oversights,
confusion, and mistaken beliefs from time to time.  In particular, when
you know how something is supposed to work, it is very difficult to
describe it in such complete detail that someone who is being
intentionally perverse can't misunderstand it (try it some time). 
Unfortunately, sometimes the misunderstanding is caused not by
intentional perversity, but by simple naivete; this is a much more
serious problem.  Interpretations are intended to address both of these
cases (although, frankly, the committee is not very sympathetic to the
first).

In general, if the standard implies something, then that is what it
means, even if it doesn't come right out and say so.  If you want to
ensure that your interpretation matches the committee's intent, then by
all means send in a Request For Interpretation -- if nothing else, it
lets us know where we should make changes in the next revision of the
standard (although that won't be happening for a few years, yet).  And,
if you think you know what we mean, by all means include that in your
RFI along with pointers to the relevant parts of the standard -- the
less work the committee has to do, the sooner you'll get a response. 
But please don't assume that just because we neglected to explicitly
state something we strongly implied that we intended to leave it
unspecified or undefined.

> These questions seem worthy of an interpretation ruling, if
> anyone really cares.  The abridged list of interpretation rulings
> Chris Volpe posted last August does not appear to cover them.
> (Speaking of lists of interpretations, someone should re-post the
> full list, of which Chris had and posted only the index.  Or have
> I missed that, too?)

I haven't seen anything since then.  ANSI is supposed to be publishing a
Technical Information Bulletin containing all of the responses to RFIs
so far, but I haven't heard anything about it recently.  I'll try to
find out what the status is and I'll see if I can get the text posted
here or if ANSI has one of its usual rules disallowing it.
----
Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
Domain: lawrence.jones@sdrc.com               IBMMAIL: USSDR7DR at IBMMAIL
I suppose if I had two X chromosomes, I'd feel hostile too. -- Calvin