Discussion:
"this subclause" in 6.2.6.1p1
(too old to reply)
j***@verizon.net
2016-07-25 17:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Section 6.2.6.1p1 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 6.2.6.1. However, 6.2.6.2 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 6.2.6.1. If that is in fact the intent, I think it could be made clearer by moving 6.2.6.1p1 to 6.2.6p1.
Kaz Kylheku
2016-07-25 19:10:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@verizon.net
Section 6.2.6.1p1 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 6.2.6.1.
However, 6.2.6.2 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 6.2.6.1. If that is
in fact the intent, I think it could be made clearer by moving
6.2.6.1p1 to 6.2.6p1.
If we regard 6 to be a clause "clause", 6.2 as a "subclause", 6.2.6 as
"subsubclause" and 6.2.6.2 as "subsubsubclause", the ambiguity
and accompanying issue goes away.
James R. Kuyper
2016-07-25 19:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kaz Kylheku
Post by j***@verizon.net
Section 6.2.6.1p1 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 6.2.6.1.
However, 6.2.6.2 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 6.2.6.1. If that is
in fact the intent, I think it could be made clearer by moving
6.2.6.1p1 to 6.2.6p1.
If we regard 6 to be a clause "clause", 6.2 as a "subclause", 6.2.6 as
"subsubclause" and 6.2.6.2 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
6.2.6.1. 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.

Loading...