Gale Paeper wrote:
As the whole text of ISO 10206 is presently written, there seems to be a logic conflict no matter which position you try to take on exporting of 6.2.2.10 required-identifiers. Perhaps I'm missing come critical point, [...]
I don't know. Perhaps we should take it to the newsgroup again, but if the standard really is unclear, I'll surely prefer the simpler (and intended, according to John Reagan) option of not allowing it.
I think a revisit/follow-up in the newsgroup or directly with John Reagan is probably warrented. First, until one can show an explicit, concrete derivation from ISO 10206 requirments which proves GPC's implementation is compliant, there will always be an open question as to whether or not GPC is compliant in this area. Second, if it does turn out that there is indeed a problem with ISO 10206 as it is presently written, John Reagan, as the X3J9 Secretary, needs to be aware of it so the deficiency can be addressed if and when X3J9 undertakes a maintenance revision of ISO 10206.
I agree. Are you going to write to the newsgroup or to John (since you did most of the analysis)?
In case there is any doubt, I also prefer the simpler option of not allowing it. (Allowing it would add a great deal of complexity both from language implementors and language users perspectives. There is no real world problem that I'm aware of that would justify that sort of added complexity.)
Also agreed. For now, I won't allow it. If it will ever be stated that it is required, I'll have to consider the issue again. (But since John indicated it wasn't intended, I don't expect this.)
Frank