Post by Kaz Kylheku Post by email@example.com
Section 126.96.36.199p1 says: "The representations of all types are unspecified except as stated in this subclause."
In that context, I would expect "this subclause" to refer to 188.8.131.52.
However, 184.108.40.206 contains many specifications concerning the
representation of integer types. Therefore, I would guess that "this
subclause" is meant to refer to 6.2.6, rather than 220.127.116.11. If that is
in fact the intent, I think it could be made clearer by moving
18.104.22.168p1 to 6.2.6p1.
If we regard 6 to be a clause "clause", 6.2 as a "subclause", 6.2.6 as
"subsubclause" and 22.214.171.124 as "subsubsubclause", the ambiguity
and accompanying issue goes away.
The standard only ever refers to "clause" and "subclause". The online
dictionaries I've checked make no mention of "subsubclause", and they
define "subclause" in a way that allows it to applies to 6.2, 6.2.6, and
126.96.36.199. I don't think this is a valid or appropriate way to resolve
this issue. Either simply move the paragraph, or change it to explicitly
state which subclause it's talking about.