Minutes of ISAC meeting held via telecom on 01 March 2007 Present: Peter Ashenden, Chuck Swart, Lance Thompson Absent: Jim Lewis, Larry Soule, Ajay Verikat Next Meeting: Thursday April 12, 2007, 7 pm Pacific Daylight Time (Friday, April 13, 2007, 2 am GMT) NOTE: For the next meeting, Daylight Savings time will be in effect in USA! TOPIC: IR 2099 Alias declarations introduce homographs Two issues related to this IR were discussed. First, John Ries pointed out that we should distinguish the alias cases involving implicitly or explicitly declared aliases referring to implicitly or explicitly declared operators. There are four logical possibilities: 1) an implicitly declared alias of an implicitly declared operator 2) an implicitly declared alias of an explicitly declared operator 3) an explicitly declared alias of an implicitly declared operator 4) an explicitly declared alias of an explicitly declared operator The rules for implicitly declared aliases prevent case 2. It was agreed that explicitly declared aliases (cases 3 and 4) should take precedence over implicitly declared aliases (case 1) , but that instances of case 3) and 4) should create illegal homographs. The proposed wording seems to support this decision. Second, there are two related forms of CASE 9: CASE 9a: package p1 is type T is (a,b,c); alias "=" is "="[T,T return boolean]; function "=" (L,R:T) return boolean; end package p1; CASE 9b: package p1 is type T is (a,b,c); function "=" (L,R:T) return boolean; alias "=" is "="[T,T return boolean]; end package p1; In CASE 9a, the alias declaration, although unusual, is legal and is not a homograph of the implicit "=" operation but is a reference to the same operation. However, the function declaration is a homograph of the alias, hence is illegal. In CASE 9b, the function declaration hides the implicit "=" operation. The alias is not a homograph of the overloaded "=" function, but refers to the same function. So CASE 9b is legal. ACTION: Chuck to review the IR to make sure that the wording conveys the desired effect, update the cases, if necessary, to reflect the two issues discussed Chuck will submit the revised IR for review, then ISAC vote.. TOPIC: Review of IRs incorporated into D3.0 2058 2006-028 Ajay Some issues 2074 2006-033 Chuck OK 2075 2006-038 Chuck OK 2077 2006-034 Ajay OK 2078 2006-035 Ajay OK 2079 2006-041 Lance OK 2080 2006-039 Lance OK 2081 2006-040 Larry 2082 2006-046 Larry ACTION: Ajay to issue bugzilla on 2058 ACTION: IRs to be examined for next meeting: 2081 2006-040 Larry 2082 2006-046 Larry 2083 2006-042 Lance 2084 2006-043 Lance 2086 2006-047 Lance 2087 2006-044 Ajay 2090 2006-045 Ajay 2092 2006-048 Ajay 2093 2006-049 Chuck 2094 2006-050 Chuck 2095 2006-051 Chuck TOPIC: Review of Pre-2002 IRs 1000 Peter Open Issues Remain 1047 Chuck Open Issues Remain 1048 Chuck Open Issues Remain 1049 Ajay Open Issues Remain 1050 Ajay All Issues Resolved 1051 Lance All Issues Resolved 1052 Lance All Issues Resolved Issue 1000 will be discussed at next ISAC meeting. ACTION: Pre-2002 IRs to be examined for next meeting 1055 Larry 1056 Larry 1057 Lance 1058 Lance 1059 Ajay 1060 Ajay 1062 Chuck 1063 Chuck