From clsi!clsirtp!mench@uunet.UU.NET Thu Mar 14 02:24:19 1991 Return-Path: Received: from suntan.viewlogic.com by twix (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA29053; Thu, 14 Mar 91 02:24:18 EST Received: from uunet.UU.NET by suntan.viewlogic.com (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA10471; Thu, 14 Mar 91 02:25:04 EST Received: from clsi.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET with UUCP (5.61/UUNET-primary-gateway) id AA00635; Thu, 14 Mar 91 02:23:37 -0500 Received: from clsirtp.UUCP by clsi.clsi.COM (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA06508; Wed, 13 Mar 91 17:51:05 EST Message-Id: <9103132251.AA06508@clsi.clsi.COM> Received: by clsirtp (DECUS UUCP w/Smail); Wed, 13 Mar 91 16:54:40 EST Date: Wed, 13 Mar 91 16:54:40 EST From: Paul Menchini To: clsi!vasg_group@uunet.UU.NET Subject: Formal comment on issue number 2 Status: RO Gentlemen, Some of you will recall that the ISAC database has a mechanism for recording formal comments about issue reports when those comments are, for some reason, not included in the issue report. To date, there has been only one use of this mechanism, by Mark Alexandre, on 8 November 1988, concerning Issue Report 0002. It is attached to this message. I am sending this out because I feel that these comments should be taken into account during the 1992 restandardization process. (I will be sending along VASG Issue Number: 0002 Comment Author: Mark Alexandre Comment Number: 01 Comment Date: 1988/11/08 Item number 8 in this issue could be resolved in either of two different ways. Our current recommendation is to change the type declaration for the type POSITIVE to make it syntactically valid. This would be okay. But I think that what may have actually been intended in that example was to use the subtype declaration for POSITIVE as given in the package STANDARD, where POSITIVE is more logically defined as a subtype of INTEGER. The keyword type was probably a typographical error in 4.4, where subtype was actually intended. A recommendation to read "subtype" for "type" yields subtype POSITIVE is INTEGER range 1 to INTEGER'HIGH; which is not only legal, but is identical to the STANDARD declara- tion. In my opinion this recommendation would be preferable.