From: Daryl Stewart (Daryl.Stewart@cl.cam.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Sep 06 2001 - 08:00:00 PDT
The following reply was made to PR errata/33; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Daryl Stewart <Daryl.Stewart@cl.cam.ac.uk>
To: Shalom Bresticker <Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com>
Cc: Daryl.Stewart@cl.cam.ac.uk, btf-bugs@boyd.com
Subject: Re: errata/33: Use of keyword "integer" (Section 17)
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 15:50:00 +0100
Shalom Bresticker <Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com> wrote:
> In general, Section 17 uses less precise syntax than the rest of the standard.
> It was a deliberate decision of the committee, in order to avoid tons of
> additional work.
Should I read that as "don't mention any more such bugs" or as "how do you
fancy doing the corrections yourself?".
I'd be happy to volunteer if you want someone to :)
I notice the same usage was in section 14 in the October 1995 draft.
> By the way, "integer" DOES appear in the example on p. 299, at the very top.
I meant it doesn't appear as suggested in the syntax - the integer in the
example is part of an integer declaration and not of any system task usage.
cheers
Daryl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Mon Jul 08 2002 - 12:54:45 PDT
and
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.