Post by Kaz Kylheku Post by firstname.lastname@example.org
Section 220.127.116.11p1 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 18.104.22.168.
However, 22.214.171.124 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 126.96.36.199. If that is
in fact the intent, I think it could be made clearer by moving
188.8.131.52p1 to 6.2.6p1.
If we regard 6 to be a clause "clause", 6.2 as a "subclause", 6.2.6 as
"subsubclause" and 184.108.40.206 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
220.127.116.11. 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.