[Cfp-interest] Comments on Introductory parts of Part 1 (and others?)

[Jim Thomas]

Placing the suggested change to C11 4#6 in the Conformance clause for Part 1 seemed reasonable because (1) the suggested change to C11 applies to the Conformance clause of C11 and (2) the conformance definition for Part 1 includes C11 conformance. I understand Willem's point that the Conformance clause is intended to be limited to a simple statement of the conformance requirement, and am open to moving the suggested change to C11 4#6 out of Part 1 clause 2. 

Willem's suggestion to move it into clause 5 seemed promising. However, the suggested title "Changes to main body of C11" would be problematic because other suggested changes to the main body of C11 are all through Part 1. Maybe something like "C standard conformance" would be a better title for such a clause 5? 

A different approach would be place the suggested changes to C11 4#6 in a new clause of its own at the end of Part 1, after the specification of the new headers that  freestanding implementations must support, with the title "Freestanding implementations".  

What do you think? If we can't get a quick resolution on this, I'd like to leave it as is and deal with it in the WG 14 review we're about to start.

-Jim

On Feb 26, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Willem Wakker <willemw at ace.nl> wrote:

> Jim,
> 
> The conformance section of a IS/TS should specify how a conforming
> implementation can conform (and nothing more); usually/often this
> is expressed as '... shall conform to the requirements specified in
> clauses 5-17 of this Technical Specification' or something similar.
> So the section is used to identify the requirements and how to
> treat them.
> 
> The 'Suggested change to C11' that is currently in section 2 is just
> one of the requirements and has nothing to do with the overall
> conformance (which is the purpose of section 2); it is there only
> because it happens to modify the conformance section (section 2)
> of the C standard.
> 
> So, the overall conformance text and the specific 'Suggested change'
> are totally different things and do not belong in the same section
> of the TS.
> 
> - Willem
> 
> On 26-2-2013 1:23, Jim Thomas wrote:
>> Willem, thank you for the review and comments. Please see below.
>> 
>> -Jim
>> 
>> On Feb 25, 2013, at 6:33 AM, Willem Wakker <willemw at ace.nl> wrote:
>> 
>>> Some quick comments:
>>> - in part 1 (and also in the other parts) the C standard is
>>> sometimes referred to as 'IEC 9899:2011'; this should be
>>> 'ISO/IEC 9899:2011'.
>> Ok. (The Normative references and Bibliography in the TS already are as you suggest.) This raises a question about the pervasive use IEC 60559, short for ISO/IEC/IEEE 60559, not only in the TS but also in the C standard.
>> 
>> The draft introductions also have IEC Technical Report 24732:2008, which is ISO/IEC Technical Report 24732:2009.
>> 
>>> - the notion 'Suggested changes to C11' when used in running
>>> text sometime make the running text look strange or difficult
>>> to parse.
>>> Suggested change: in clause 2
>>>    a) It meets the requirements for a conforming implementation
>>>       of C11 with all the 'Suggested changes to C11', as
>>>       specified in Part 1 of this Technical Specification; and
>> Yes, this is clearer.
>> 
>>> - there is some confusion in the Conformance section: it now
>>> contains a suggested change to C11; that should not be there.
>> Hmm. The section contains a specification for Part 1 conformance which entails a (suggested) change to the specification for C11 conformance. Why is the current placement inappropriate or confusing?
>> 
>>> I suggest the following changes:
>>> a- make a new clause 5 header with title 'Changes to main body
>>>    of C11';
>>> 
>>> b- make a new clause 5.1 header with title 'Conformance' and
>>>    move the current 'Suggested change to C11' from clause 2 to
>>>    this new clause
>>> 
>>> c- rename the current clause 5 to clause 5.2 Predefined macros
>>> 
>>> - I do not like the use of the notion 'Part 1 of this Technical
>>> Specification'. I am more inclined to use 'This part of Technical
>>> Specification 0000:20xx'. Reason: 'this part' is the thing you
>>> have in your hand, 'this TS' is a wider thing that you do not
>>> have in your hand.
>> Good point. Does anyone see a problem with using the words Willem suggests?
>> 
>>> Probably similar changes need to be made to the other parts as well.
>>> 
>>> - Willem Wakker
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Willem Wakker, ACE Consulting bv,
>>> De Ruyterkade 113, 1011 AB  Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
>>> Tel: +31 20 6646416, Mob: +31 625 026561, Fax: +31 20 6750389,
>>> mailto:willemw at ace.nl, http://www.ace.nl.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cfp-interest mailing list
>>> Cfp-interest at oakapple.net
>>> http://mailman.oakapple.net/mailman/listinfo/cfp-interest
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Willem Wakker, ACE Consulting bv,
> De Ruyterkade 113, 1011 AB  Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
> Tel: +31 20 6646416, Mob: +31 625 026561, Fax: +31 20 6750389,
> mailto:willemw at ace.nl, http://www.ace.nl.
>