Re: [sv-ac] call for vote on 1601

Hi Dmitry:

I was not aware that 0928 had been reopened.  The database
shows that the proposal was unanimously accepted by email vote
on 2006-07-11 and approved by P1800 on 2007-09-21.

Can you clarify?

J.H.

> X-ExtLoop1: 1
> X-IronPort-AV: i="4.13,224,1167638400"; 
>    d="scan'208"; a="191091934:sNHT23641880388"
> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:41:40 +0200
> X-MS-Has-Attach: 
> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
> Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] call for vote on 1601
> thread-index: Acc8tOFc65y7kJICQxaMa6/wMilYwACGZlUg
> From: "Korchemny, Dmitry" <dmitry.korchemny@intel.com>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2007 09:41:57.0822 (UTC) FILETIME=[B96B4DE0:01C73ED2]
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I vote no on 1601, for the following reasons:
> 1. Since the status of Mantis 928 is reopened, the changes in the
> current proposal should not be relative to Mantis 928, but to the
> existing LRM.
> 2. This proposal introduces 'context' keyword for sequence formal
> arguments BNF only, and not for property formal arguments. The
> appropriate BNF should be added.
> 
> (Hopefully I am talking about the right document version:
> 1601_context_type_2.pdf).
> 
> Also I would not include:
> 
> "Arguments "x" and "y" will be truncated to type
> bit, and argument "z" will be truncated or extended as necessary to make
> it of type byte."
> 
> into this proposal, since it relates to passing sequence/property
> argument semantics, and this issue deserves a separate Mantis entry.
> 
> As for Hillel's comments, I think that the meaning of this Mantis is
> pure syntactic: there are two kinds of property/sequence arguments:
> typed and untyped. Untyped arguments should either be provided at the
> beginning of the argument list without any type specifier or in the
> middle of the list if previous arguments had type specifiers. The
> semantics of the untyped argument passing is out of the scope of this
> Mantis. We already have the untyped arguments de facto, and there is
> nothing new about them. I agree that the argument passing semantics is
> not very clear, but its definition should not delay the current
> enhancement.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dmitry
> 

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