RE: ISAC: Minutes from meeting on 12 July 2007

Chuck,

Sorry I wasn't able to attend. I've looked at the notes in the minutes, and
disagree with the revised interpretation of Example 9a. Principle 2 states
that an implicitly declared alias of an implicit declaration is an implicit
declaration. It does not state that an explicitly declared alias of an
implicit declaration is an implicit declaration.

I think it would be a mistake to specify that an explicitly declared alias
can be hidden by an explicitly declared homograph. Example 9a makes the
effect quite clear: you have two declarations explicitly written, but one of
them is not visible! I can see it on the screen, so what's the point of
writing it if I can't get at it? Must be an error.

Certainly Ajay's suggested interpretation is at odds with the recommended
change to 10.3:

  "Two declarations that occur immediately within the same declarative
  region,...,must not be homographs, unless exactly one of them is the
  implicit declaration of a predefined operation or is an implicit alias
  of such an implicit declaration."

In Example 9a, neither declaration of "=" is implicit, and they are
homographs.

End $0.02.

Cheers,

PA

--
Dr. Peter J. Ashenden         peter@ashenden.com.au
Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd.    www.ashenden.com.au
PO Box 640                    VoIP: sip://0871270078@sip.internode.on.net
Stirling, SA 5152             Phone: +61 8 7127 0078
Australia                     Mobile: +61 414 70 9106


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-isac@server.eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-isac@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Swart
> Sent: Friday, 13 July 2007 13:34 PM
> To: isac@server.eda.org
> Subject: ISAC: Minutes from meeting on 12 July 2007
> 
> 
> Attached are the minutes from today's ISAC meeting. Because 
> of the low 
> attendance, we only discussed
> IR 2099. Please review these minutes ASAP and let me know 
> your opinion 
> about the proposed
> changes. We need to get moving on this IR.
> 
> Chuck Swart
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> 


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