__________________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 1 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 1) [l.johnson@computer.org_969282990.22532_ieee]Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) __________________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: __________________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: There needs to be some sort of identifier of the section on each page. It is very difficult to find a section you need. Action: If you plan to continue having multiple sections 1, 2 , 3, etc, then you should use the following format: IV 3.2.1 2987 means book 4, section 3.2.1, page 2987 Other formats would be acceptable, as long as I know what section I am in. ____________________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 2 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 2) [David.Butenhof@compaq.com_969384163.6106_ieee]Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) ____________________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: ____________________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: I have reviewed the objections which I have submitted to Open Group in aardvark format and fully support those objections. My IEEE ballot objections can be resolved by fully resolving those objections. Action: Resolve the Austin group aardvark objections I have submitted, which are identifiable by the tag pattern "drb.xshd4.*" and "drb-xbdd4-*". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 3 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 3) [prindle@ieee.org_967665364.2684_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: I have reviewed the objections which I have submitted to Open Group in aardvark format and fully support those objections. My IEEE ballot objections can be resolved by fully resolving those objections. Action: For each objection submitted to the Open Group in aardvark format, perform the action designated in the "Action:" aardvark field. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 4 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 4) [beh@peren.com_969463247.18079_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: The final version of this document should correspond to that being produced by the Austin Group. Action: see comment _______________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 5 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 5) [andrewr@eng.sun.com_969551206.29507_ieee]Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _______________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _______________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: I have reviewed the objections that Don Cragun has submitted tothe Austin Group in aardvark format and fully support those objections. My IEEE ballot objection can be resolved by fully resolving Don's objections. Action: For each objection Don submitted to the Austin Group inaardvark format, perform the action designated in the "Action:" aardvark field. _________________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 6 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 18) [ajosey@opengroup.org_969889560.24660_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _________________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _________________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: I recommend that the final approved draft be the same at the produced by the Austin Group Action: As above, synchronize the final draft. ________________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 7 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 7) [J.Isaak@Computer.org_969486364.22831_ieee]Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) ________________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: An essential aspect of POSIX/UNIX systems is support for multiple user ID's. I belive we should add two requirements and one suggestion to address this in a way that is consistent with the work so far. 1) require support for at least xx user id's (I'd go for 16k, but willing to go with any number greater than 16) 2) require that vendors document the privilaged administrative function required to set user ID at both the API and shell level. 3) Recommend that user id's support a full 64 bit field (This allows large organizations to have unique user id's over many systems with out the need for re-use ... consider a college with 20K new students each year....) Action: IF there is general acceptance for this approach we can add additional wording (I belive that the functionallity defined is already present in most if not all vendors systems, including documentation, so this should not require an changes in vendor systems or vendor documentation.) ____________________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 8 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 20) [chammons@mindspring.com_969886491.24250_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) ____________________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: ____________________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: I have been balloting for some time and this is the first email based exercise. I have enjoyed being in the middle of all the comments and discussions. In spite of the volume of email, I believe it to be most benificial and time saving. All issues I have looked at have been discovered by other members and have been fully discussed. Thank you. Action: ______________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 9 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 9) [damico@eng.sun.com_969679345.13124_ieee]Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) ______________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: ______________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: I have reviewed the objections that Don Cragun has submitted to the Austin Group in aardvark format and fully support those objections. My IEEE ballot objection can be resolved by fully resolving Don's objections. Action: For each objection Don submitted to the Austin Group in aardvark format, perform the action designated in the "Action:" aardvark field. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 10 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 21) [keld@rap.dk_969961447.3049_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: I refer to our comments to the Austin group. Action: If these are resolved satisfactorily, the vote will be changed to "yes _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 11 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 22) [keld@rap.dk_969961096.3014_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: I refer to our comments to the Austin group. If these are resolved satisfactorily, the vote will be changed to "yes" Action: _________________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 12 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 12) [donnte@microsoft.com_969662953.12221_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _________________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _________________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: all Section: all Problem: I have submitted over 100 technical comments directly to the Austin group, which I support here. In addition, I attach three general comments about the document (which are also being sent to the Austing group) (in their format) so that they are directly visible to the IEEE balloting process. They are in Austin Group format, and include the suggested remedy inline. (The text is identical here and in what has been sent to the Austin Group.) ___________________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 13 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 23) [don.cragun@eng.sun.com_969895495.25710_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) ___________________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: ___________________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: Due to the hassle of having to create XML to submit ballot comments directly to IEEE, I have submitted bulk objections, comments, and editorial comments directly to the Austin Group aliases for this ballot. Action: This objection can be satisfied by resolving all of the objections I have submitted to the Austin Group aliases. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 14 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 24) [a.josey@xopen.org_969962263.3123_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: The final document should be that approved by the Austin Group Action: Synchronize with the Austin Group _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 15 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 29) [mgh@unican.es_969950064.1808_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: I fully support the objections that Frank Prindle has submitted to The Open Group in aardvark format. My IEEE ballot objections can be resolved by fully resolving those objections. Action: For each objection submitted by Frank Prindle to the Open Group in aardvark format, perform the action designated in the "Action:" aardvark field. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 16 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 33) [baker@cs.fsu.edu_969225910.19011_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: I have been monitoring the Austin Group "aardvark" list and am satisfied that if the issues raised there are corrected the document will be satisfactory as an IEEE standard. Action: ______________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 17 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 30) [gwinn@res.ray.com_970005254.10578_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) ______________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: ______________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: I have been been both monitoring the Austin Group "aardvark" list and submitting comments and will be satisfied when my specific comments (and objections) are resolved, those of {Mike Gonzales, Karen Gordon, Jim Oblinger, Frank Prindle, Pierre-Jean Arcos, Francois Riche} are resolved, as well as the rest of the issues raised in the Austin Group list. Action: See Comment field. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 18 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 28) [fpm@hotmail.com_969990929.7634_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: I have reviewed the objections submitted to the Austin Group in aardvark format against this document and fully support the majority of those objections. Action: My IEEE ballot objection can be resolved by resolving each and every objection submitted to the Austin Group. _______________________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 19 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 27) [kgordon@vuse.vanderbilt.edu_969997088.8787_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _______________________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: I fully support the objections which Frank Prindle has submitted to Open Group in aardvark format. Action: As far as my IEEE ballot is concerned, these objections can be resolved by fully resolving Frank's objections. ________________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 20 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 26) [roger.martin@sun.com_969986992.6874_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) ________________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: I have reviewed the objections which Don Cragun has submitted to the Austin Group in aardvark format and fully support those objections. My IEEE ballot objections can be resolved by fully resolving the objections and comments which Don has submitted. Action: Perform the suggested remedy for each objection raised in the ballot submitted to the Austin Group by Don Cragun. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 21 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 14) [DST-180] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: all Line: all Section: all Problem: This is a huge document. It runs to about 3500 pages, or well over 8 inches in thickness. It is simply impossible to review the document, particularly in light of the editorial problems, in even the two months that have been given for it. (That requires careful, thorough reading at the rate of over 50 pages a day, every day, for the two month period.) That is not practical, particularly if one has other responsibilities, and does not contribute to the quality of the standard in the least. However, I recognize that it is desireable to complete this work as quickly as possible, and in practice that most balloters will procrastinate given a long ballot period. Related to this is simply fatigue: it is clear based simply on the number of objections that the commands and utilities volume and the rationale are not getting good coverage, and that (except for certain specialty areas such as pthreads) that the front of the System Interfaces gets more review than the back. Having a document which is of lesser quality than the documents it revises is in no-one's interest. Action: (I followed roughly the plan outlined below for this ballot cycle, it did help a bit as I do have better coverage of the Rationale and Commands and Utilities than I otherwise would.) Break the document up into "one month" sized chunks, and ballot them in successive months, in the following order. The whole document, not just changes, should remain open for comment during the first such cycle, to assure that the thorough review required does in fact happen at least once. (To be clear: the ballot period for one piece would close the day before the ballot period for the next one appears; the draft of that one piece should have been distributed electronlically a few days before, so those who prefer paper copies can get them printed.) XRAT (which has gotten far too little coverage) XBD (because it's so basic to everything else) XCU M-Z XCU A-M XSH Q-Z XSH H-P XSH A-G Repeat in this order, but as the number of changes drops, make the chunks larger, but never less than 3, so that a piece can be in the editors hands, another in balloting, and the third in ballot review, continuously. (That is, until the number of changes required to do the whole document can be reviewed in two weeks or so, the standard recirculation period.) This is good for the editors, in that they do not have to produce all 3500 pages at the same time, and the ballot resolution can proceed (at least that part that can be done by email) in parallel with the balloting.) (Since resolution starts earlier (because there's a shorter delay in preparation of the first piece) and resolution proceeds in parallel, the end of the cycle appears to occur at about the same time as it would in a single "big batch".) _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 22 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 15) [DST-181] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: all Line: all Section: all Problem: As indicated by the editor, revision bars were not always applied accurately. In a document of this size, as the balloting cycle narrows down on the number of open issues, it is desireable to have shorter ballot cycles. However, that is impossible if the revision bars are not accurate, because the whole document must be reread each time. (Not that that's all bad, but...) Action: As a matter of policy, if a change is made to the document, the change is considered open for further balloting (by IEEE narrowing-down rules) until such time that it is accurately marked with revison bars, plus one draft. (That is, if an unmarked change is discovered in the "last" ballot cycle, the unmarked item is still open for objection. However, once an item has been marked, it has been exposed and the usual rules apply.) Action: Imbedded in the Comment _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 23 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 13) [DST-179] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: all Line: all Section: all Problem: A significant amount of information from the base documents (the ISO/IEEE standards of 1990-1999) has been lost editorially in the current draft. I have balloted on this issue consistently that an editorial pass needs to be made to restore this material, and I have provided specific instances for correction as I find them. However, the specific task of restoring the document's content (that was not intentionally changed as authorized by the PAR) has not been performed. Consequently, I believe that the PAR has not been met. The loss takes many forms, but two deserve specific mention: * Rationale, introductory material, and the like have been dropped. Specifically observed to be missing in this draft is the list of omitted Commands and why they were omitted, and the 1003.1 introduction that contains the critical "Interface, not Implementation" discussion. * Many of the normative "shall" statements were converted to active verbs, losing their normative force. POSIX has always been weak in this regard, and this regression is only to the detriment of the standard. Before proceeding further with the formal ballot process, the editorial problems need to be fixed. Action: Restore all missing text and proper normative phrasing of requirements. Attemt to (within the constraints of the new, and truly improved, order) restore the other editorial strengths of the the originals. ________________________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 24 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 8) [james.bottomley@steeleye.com_969553192.29887_ieee]Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) ________________________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: ________________________________________________________________________________________ Page: 950 Line: 14955 Section: fsync Problem: There should be some primitive for synchronising a directory as well as a file. A large number of applications write data to a temporary file, commit the data and rename the temporary file over the original and would now like to commit the rename. Although nothing in the draft rules out use of fsync() for this, fsync() should explictly permit the passing of a file descriptor of a directory (which must be read only) and should commit all cached changes associated with that directory. Action: On line 14957 change "...associated with the file described..." to "...associated with the file or directory described..." After line 14963 (in DESCRIPTION) add the following note: "Note: the file descriptor may be open read only if it indicates a directory" On line 14979 change "...modifications to a file to be..." to "...modifications to a file or directory to be..." On line 14995 change "...for at least some files that can..." to "...for at least some files or directories that can..." ________________________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 25 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 6) [james.bottomley@steeleye.com_969553357.29917_ieee]Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) ________________________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: ________________________________________________________________________________________ Page: 950 Line: 14957 Section: fsync Problem: The term "description" is wrong. Action: On lines 14956-14957 change "...for the open file description named by..." to "...for the open file descriptor named by..." ____________________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 26 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 31) [c.harding@opengroup.org_969467195.19020_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) ____________________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: ____________________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1013 Line: 17021-17171 Section: unk Problem: There is overlap in functionality between getipnodebyname()/getipnodebyaddr() and getnameinfo()/getaddreinfo(). And there are some circumstances in which getipnodebyname() and getipnodebyaddr() can not be used. Action: The draft should detail the circumstances in which these functions should and should not be used in their respective Application Usage sections, and should cross-refer to each other in their respective "See Also" sections. An acceptable alternative would be to remove getipnodebyname() and getipnodebyaddr(). _________________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 27 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 11) [Niklas.Holsti@ssf.fi_969886157.24196_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _________________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _________________________________________________________________________________ Page: 3309 Line: 4 Section: A Problem: Only the "Open Group" is listed as author on this and other part title-pages. Action: Should the IEEE Standard Association also be listed? _________________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 28 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 17) [Niklas.Holsti@ssf.fi_969885904.24157_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _________________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _________________________________________________________________________________ Page: 3322 Line: 430 Section: A.3 Problem: Incorrect characterisation of ASCII as a "1-bit character set". Action: Change "1-bit" to "1-byte". _________________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 29 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 19) [Niklas.Holsti@ssf.fi_969885984.24168_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _________________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _________________________________________________________________________________ Page: 3358 Line: 1862 Section: A.7.3.5 Problem: The example dates given on this and the following line are shown in the U.S. specific form (m/d/y). This may be confusing for e.g. European readers. Action: Change "7/4/1776" to "the fourth of July in the year 1776", and (on line 1863) "7/14/1789" to "The fourteenth of July in the year 1789". Also, is it appropriate to give, as examples, dates that precede the Epoch? _________________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 30 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 32) [Niklas.Holsti@ssf.fi_969886067.24185_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _________________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _________________________________________________________________________________ Page: 3375 Line: 2505 Section: A.12.1 Problem: The statement that the command on line 2504 would be a syntax error seems too strong. Section 12.2 in the Base Definitions says (line 7465) that ranges greater than the signed 31-bit values are allowed, so an implementation could syntactically accept the option value 3000000000, yet reject it on semantic grounds. Action: Change "would be a syntax error" to "could be a syntax error". _________________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 31 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 10) [Niklas.Holsti@ssf.fi_969886439.24229_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _________________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _________________________________________________________________________________ Page: 3405 Line: 3661 Section: B.2.8 Problem: The description of Ada rendez-vous is out of date. The current Ada standard includes priority queuing. Action: Delete the sentence containing the word "Ada". _________________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 32 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 25) [Niklas.Holsti@ssf.fi_969886587.24255_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _________________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _________________________________________________________________________________ Page: 3418 Line: 4257 Section: B.2.8.3 Problem: Fortran is described as a language without pointers; I believe this is out of date with the current Fortran standard. Action: Delete mention of Fortran and just say "languages with pointer types". _________________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 33 IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 16) [Niklas.Holsti@ssf.fi_969886738.24272_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) _________________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _________________________________________________________________________________ Page: 3419 Line: 4311 Section: B.2.8.3 Problem: A lower-level standard (ANSI Ada) is referred to, where a higher-level standard exists (ISO Ada). Action: Change "ANSI Ada" to "ISO Ada".