The changes identified in the minutes quoted were never fwd'd to the
sponsor (i.e. never came to my attention during the revision development
cycle). Note that the finalized interpretations 43, 43.1, etc were
considered but do not contain any proposed changes -- these can be
found online in the PASC Interps Chair's Infobase at www.pasc.org/interps/
IEEE procedures would require that these go through a balloting
process, so it was unfortunate that they did not get put
forward into the revision. We'll need to determine the scope
of what changes are allowable in TC1 before we will know whether
they could go into TC1.
I would also expect that in parallel with TC1, we will be starting
a series of interpretations and proposed future directions for the
standard since some of the DRs raised will be out of scope for TC1.
regards
Andrew
On Apr 9, 2:43pm in "Re: RE-ASSOC: a ques", Paul Eggert wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:57:22 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: David Korn <yyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > I believe that this issue was resolved in the June 1995 POSIX RE experts
> > meeting in Toronto which I chaired. I have enclose the minutes
> > below.
>
> Thanks very much for those minutes. Unfortunately, it appears to me
> that the issue resolutions were effectively lost, i.e. they do not
> appear in POSIX 1003.1-2001. This should get fixed, not only by
> editing the rationale, but also by applying the corrections to the
> normative part of the standard. The fixes should be applied
> regardless of what interpretations are chosen for RE-CONCAT, RE-ASSOC,
> and RE-ITERATE.
>
> How do we get the procedural ball rolling on this?
>-- End of excerpt from Paul Eggert
-----
Andrew Josey The Open Group
Austin Group Chair Apex Plaza,Forbury Road,
Email: yyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Reading,Berks.RG1 1AX,England
Tel: +44 118 9508311 ext 2250 Fax: +44 118 9500110
|