Re: Manifesto against Vector

["Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net>]

Jeffrey Carter wrote:

> While I agree that Vector is not the best name for this abstraction, I 
> have expressed my opinion and the reasons behind it to the ARG during 
> earlier discussions of AI-302-03, and the ARG chose Vector. The 
> discussion is over. I can live with it.

Technically, it is not over.  I think that this particular issue is a 
pimple on the rear of fly, but it is a good example of the differences 
in the roles of WG9 and the ARG.

The ARG is a sub-group of WG9 tasked with finding solutions to language 
issues that arise.  When the ARG has a solution that seems to deal with 
all the technical aspects of an issue, it is forwarded to WG9.  In the 
case of the Ada0Y extensions, the approved changes will be submitted in 
a group to SC22, and then to ISO/IEC JTC1 for approval.

Non-technical language issues are normally dealt with at the WG9 level. 
  It is fairly common for the ARG to come up with a good technical 
solution, and for WG9 to refer it back to the ARG to find a different 
solution.

In this case, I personally don't think that this is a big enough issue 
to merit that kind of attention.  But I don't dictate to WG9 
delegations.  Note that WG9 delegations represent ISO member countries. 
  So, for example, a name that was a swear word in, say, Polish would be 
the sort of issue WG9 would address, not the ARG.

-- 

                                           Robert I. Eachus

"The terrorist enemy holds no territory, defends no population, is 
unconstrained by rules of warfare, and respects no law of morality. Such 
an enemy cannot be deterred, contained, appeased or negotiated with. It 
can only be destroyed--and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the business 
at hand."  -- Dick Cheney