(1) Mantis 3046 ___Yes _X_No
I agree with a lot of what Arturo mentioned.
To tell you the truth, I don't think this set of changes is even necessary.
I agree with the summary of the examples described in the mantis item, but
it seems to me that the existing text leads to this conclusion.
(2) Mantis 2506 ___Yes ___No
2506_v5.pdf
I didn't have time to review this one in detail.
(3) Mantis 3531 _X_Yes ___No
(4) Mantis 3394 ___Yes _X_No
It isn't clear to me that this example is invalid.
Aren't both the existing text and the proposed text legal?
I agree with the change in the comment for dest2.
(5) Mantis 2905 _X_Yes ___No
(6) Mantis 3254 _X_Yes ___No
(7) Mantis 3298 ___Yes _X_No
By making this change, it creates a new problem in the existing text.
The following sentence assumes 'this' can only be used in a class
subroutine.
"The this keyword denotes a predefined object handle that refers to the
object that was used to invoke the subroutine that this is used within."
Friendly amendments:
The new text should be in blue and not underlined.
The mantis item should also be shown at the top of the proposal.
(8) Mantis 3054 _X_Yes ___No CLOSE as duplicate of 3202 (sv-ac)
(9) Mantis 2935 _X_Yes ___No
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed May 11 15:22:31 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 11 2011 - 15:22:35 PDT