James Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, on 31 Mar 2007: > > It seems to me that there is a certain amount of > (confusion|disagreement) among members of the austin-group-l mailing > list, who are, almost by definition, connoisseurs of standards wording > and distinguishers of fine points. > > If the members of that list cannot mostly agree on what exactly the > standard means here, then (once we've figured that out) we should > reword it so that it is clearer to everybody.
Yes, we should tidy up the wording to eliminate any possible confusion. We should be using the wording from the C Standard for these numerical limits, since most of them are from the C Standard. Ironically, it is the wording for SSIZE_MAX that is closest to being right and the others that all need to change, as the wording in the C Standard is "maximum value for an object of type xxxx". I'll submit a defect report. -- Geoff Clare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Open Group, Thames Tower, Station Road, Reading, RG1 1LX, England
