Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.std.c++ > #264

Re: Defect Report: Unclear wording about capacity of temporary buffers

Show all headers | View raw

Am 28.08.2011 17:41, schrieb Kazutoshi Satoda:
>  Daniel Kr�gler wrote:
>>
>>  If at all this looks more like an editorial problem to me, no real
>>  defect in the wording.
>
>  What is the difference of "editorial problem" and "real defect" ?

A "real defect" demonstrates that there is a clear contradiction in the
wording or that the wording clearly says something that could not be
(reasonably) intended. As of your current explanations I could not find
any evidence for this matter.

>  AFAIK, all problem reports about standard are collectively treated
>  "Defect Report". Thus I believe this problem (unclear wording) is a
>  defect.
>  http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html#B13
>
>  If I should report "editorial problem" in other way, please explain what
>  is it and how to report it.

I'm still missing your rationale. As of you have written so far, I
couldn't find evidence for this.

>>  I also believe that the suggested form "having
>>  up to n capacity" is bad English.
>
>  Sorry but, I'm not a native English speaker and I'm not sure how bad the
>  wording was.
>
>  However, here is another try. I hope the editors in standard committee
>  will give better wording if it is still bad. Complete ignorance of my
>  wording is also OK for me if the original intent was clarified in the
>  standard.
>
>  Proposed resolution:
>
>  Change 20.6.11 [temporary.buffer] paragraph 1 and 2 to
>
>  Effects: Obtains a pointer to storage whose capacity (number of
>  adjacent T objects storable in it) is up to n. It is implementation
>  defined whether over-aligned types are supported (3.11).
>
>  Returns: A pair containing the buffer's address and capacity (in the
>  units of sizeof(T)), or a pair of 0 values if no storage can be
>  obtained or if n<= 0.

Yes, this wording suggestion would make the wording state clearer. But I
still do not see how the current wording says something differently. It
is true, that the reader must somehow understand that the "capacity"
mentioned in p2 must refer to the more indirect requirement expressed by
"storage sufficient to store up to n adjacent T objects". Could you
please provide a more elaborate description how the current wording
state could be misinterpreted? If there exist a real-world example of
this misinterpretation, this would be even better.

Greetings from Bremen,

Daniel Krügler




-- 
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try posting with your ]
[ newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-cpp-submit@vandevoorde.com ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]

Back to comp.std.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Defect Report: Unclear wording about capacity of temporary buffers Kazutoshi Satoda <k_satoda@f2.dion.ne.jp> - 2011-08-28 08:41 -0700
  Re: Defect Report: Unclear wording about capacity of temporary buffers Daniel Krügler<daniel.kruegler@googlemail.com> - 2011-08-28 11:07 -0700
  Re: Defect Report: Unclear wording about capacity of temporary buffers Kazutoshi Satoda<k_satoda@f2.dion.ne.jp> - 2011-09-11 09:12 -0700
    Re: Defect Report: Unclear wording about capacity of temporary buffers Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler@googlemail.com> - 2011-09-11 17:47 -0700

csiph-web