ambiguous ?

[bob larson]

In article <14093 at lanl.gov> jlg at lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>From article <11330 at smoke.BRL.MIL>, by gwyn at smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn):
>> -The standard SPECIFICALLY separates the concept of implementation
>> -defined from the concept of unspecified behaviours.
>The standard specifically contains the two concepts _separately_.
>Frankly, I think the standard committee looks mightly foolish
>having defined the standard in this way....

Perhaps an analogy would help.

A 100 mile race course has a small section of track with snow on it,
and a paved (but longer) detour around this section.  There is a
desire to standardize racecar design between various tracks, and since
most courses have no snowy section, the detour is made the "official"
racecourse.  (Existing cars are faster there anyway, and less likely
to get in accidents.) One racecar driver insists that the snowy
section be made the official route, and that all racecars be equipted
with tire chains.  The factual arguments that it is faster on both
normal racecourses and the one with the snowy section not to have tire
chains have no effect on this driver, he continually drives over the
snowy section and crashing regularly.  Are we supposed to have
sympathy for this driver?  For some unknown reason, he isn't choosing
to drive an existing 4-wheel drive car.

--  
Bob Larson	blarson at basil.usc.edu		usc!basil!blarson
--**		To join Prime computer mailing list		**---
info-prime-request at ais1.usc.edu		usc!ais1!info-prime-request