J3/11-136r1 To: J3 From: Van Snyder Subject: Restrictions on generic declarations, generic resolution Date: 2011 February 14 Reference: 10-007r1 1. Purely editorial =================== [286:31 C1215]---------------------------------------------------------- Editor: Replace the full stop at the end of the line with a comma. 2. Interpretation request ========================= NUMBER: F08/xxxx TITLE: Ordering requirements on definition of specification functions KEYWORDS: Specification expressions, specification functions DEFECT TYPE: Clarification REFERENCE: BACKGROUND There is a specification in 12.4.3.4 of the properties that cause two dummy arguments to be distinguishable. C1214 specifies that two procedures within the scope of a shall be distinguishable. There is no specification of the properties that would cause two non-dummy procedures to be distinguishable. 12.4.3.4.5p5 specifies that a "generic invocation applies to...." QUESTIONS (1) Should the requirement be that the \cf{dtv} arguments are distinguishable? (2) Should 12.4.3.4.5p5 specify that a "generic invocation is consistent with...?" ANSWERS (1) Yes. (2) Yes. Edits are provided to clarify these two issues. EDITS w.r.t. 10-007r1 12.4.2.4.5 C1214 Replace "two ... identifier" by "if two procedures have the same generic identifier, their \cf{dtv} arguments". Insert "(9.6.4.8.3)" somewhere (your choice). 12.4.3.4.5p5 Replace "applies to" by "is consistent with". Alternative edits for C1214 C1215 correctly covers the case, albeit with more generality than necessary, so C1214 was never really necessary. 12.4.2.4.5 C1214 Delete C1214. 12.4.2.4.5 C1215 After "generic name" insert "or ". Replace "that name" by "that generic identifier". SUBMITTED BY: Van Snyder HISTORY: 11-xxx m194 Submitted F08/xxxx ----------------------------------------------------------------------