Issue 10435: 11.8.1 (ocl2-rtf)
Source: NIST (Mr. Peter Denno, peter.denno(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: "When new iterator expressions are added to the standard library, there 
mapping to existing constructs should be fully defines.


- What does that mean? It sounds like an admonition to spec writers.
- also "defined" not "defines"
- also "their" not "there"

Resolution: 
Revised Text: (1) In Section 11.8 remove the sentence "Whenever a new iterator is added to the library, the mapping to the iterate expression must be defined. If this is not done, the semantics of the new iterator are undefined."

(2) In Section 11.8.1, replace the sentence:
When new iterator expressions are added to the standard library, their mapping to existing constructs should be fully defined. If this is done, the semantics of the new iterator expression will be defined.

By:
It is possible to add new iterator expressions in the standard library. If this is done the semantics of a new iterator should be defined by mapping it to existing constructs, in the same way the semantics of pre-defined iterators is done (see Section 11.9).

Actions taken:
November 2, 2006: received issue
October 16, 2009: closed issue
Discussion: 
It means that someone defining a new iterator should provide the semantics using the technique used in Section 11.9 for the pre-defined iterators. This could be made clearer by explicitly referring to this Section 11.9. BTW Section 11.8.1 duplicates somehow the sentence that is above in the preamble of 11.8 "Whenever a new iterator is added to the library, the mapping to the iterate expression must be defined. If this is not done, the semantics of the new iterator are undefined."  This duplication leaves the impression of a copy/paste problem. To avoid this we remove the sentence in the preamble and adjust the sentence in 11.8.1.
End of Annotations:=====
s is issue # 10435

11.8.1 

"When new iterator expressions are added to the standard library, there 
mapping to existing constructs should be fully defines.


- What does that mean? It sounds like an admonition to spec writers.
- also "defined" not "defines"
- also "their" not "there"