James Giles said:
> The kind of disreputable practice of claiming that a newly
> decided concept was actually the intention of some past
> writer of a document
Nonsense. That is *NOT* what the "interpretation" process is.
As far as ISO are concerned, the process is merely fixing errors and
ambiguities in a standard. That's it.
How one might categorise the errors is rather irrelevant, whether it's
"we got the words wrong" or "we didn't realise the implications" or
"we forgot about this case".
That said, I don't particularly think this warrants an interp request.
There is certainly not universal agreement that it is mathematically
defined.
Cheers,
--
........................Malcolm Cohen ([log in to unmask]), Nihon NAG, Tokyo.
|