ISAC:Minutes from meeting on 01 March 2007

The minutes are also available at the website.



-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


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