On Monday, November 18, 2002, at 12:48 PM, Garrett Goebel wrote:
I went back through those posts, and I found where you suggested 0c0123... but I can't find a post from Larry confirming it.It's not confirmed, just wild speculation. If we're reasonably sure we don't have any gaping errors in the summary, we can ask the design team to pass judgement upon it and make a final decision. They may indeed decide 0123 needs to stay octal.
In the same vein, it'd be nice if syntax developed on the documentation list to flush out ambiguities or propose syntax workarounds were marked as such. When reading some of the summaries, I've found myself wondering what parts come from the A&E's, which have Larry & Damian since reversed or altered, and which are suggestions from the documentation team...Yeah, I agree. One of the problems is that most of the things we need to talk about most are the things that have been described the least, so we by definition have to suggest a lot as we go, and it's difficult to figure out where the merely "implied" stuff from the A&Es ends and the "revised" or "suggested" stuff begins. :-/ Not sure there's any easy solution, since it's almost impossible to find previous references to some stuff. ("Oh, that was talked about in Zurich!", or "you know, that thread from last April") ;-P
Once we give the document(s) to them, they'll give us feedback, and after an iteration or two we'll have a section they can mark as "approved". _THEN_ it will be FINAL, as in people should code to it. Mostly. We hope. :-)
MikeL
