[sv-ec] RE: Feedback on grammar change for 2506

Hi,

The subject of 'truth' was discussed in the SV-BC meeting of July 18 (which I did not attend), in the context of Mantis 1251.

The meeting minutes summarize,

 "AI: Shalom resolve 1251 by referring to rules of if-statement (12.4)
  AI: File new mantis item to clarify determination of true/false for
      If-statement (12.4), while, do-while, iff, conditional operator
      and potentially others for all data types."

That is, 1251 will be resolved by adding a reference in the relevant section to the definition of truth in 12.4.

Note that Mantis 1974 already covers the issue of defining truth.

So why couldn't you simply write,

"(i.e., for which the expression evaluates to true, as described in 12.4)"?

Regards,
Shalom

> 3) Is there more than one way in the standard to understand "evaluates to
> true"?
> Why do we need to say "The truth value of the with clause expression is
> interpreted in the same way an expression is interpreted in the condition
> of
> a procedural if statement(Sec. 12.4).?
>
> In my initial revision, I stated:
>
> [SL] That statement was intended to be a clarification. Questions have been
> raised about it before. I have removed that sentence.
>
> In the SV-EC meeting yesterday the group felt that the clarification is
> useful and the sentence should stay. Steven pointed to mantis 1251 as an
> example of the potential confusion regarding the use of "evaluates to true".
> Based on this information are you okay if we leave in the sentence in
> question?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.