Version 1.1 of acs/ac-00187.txt

Unformatted version of acs/ac-00187.txt version 1.1
Other versions for file acs/ac-00187.txt

!standard 6.5(5.2/3)          10-02-13 AC95-00187/01
!class confirmation 10-02-13
!status received no action 10-02-13
!status received 09-11-25
!subject Wording question about 6.5
!summary
!appendix

!topic Return Statements
!reference 6.5(5.2/3)
!from Christoph Grein 09-11-26
!discussion

This paragraph talks alternatively about the "result type" and the "result
subtype" of a function. Is this intended? What's the difference?

****************************************************************

From: Randy Brukardt
Date: Saturday, February 13, 2010  12:35 AM

The short answer is, yes, this is intended.

The longer answer. You are asking about the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sentences of this
wording. The difference (although jarring) seems necessary: The 2nd sentence is
only requiring the types (not the subtypes!) to be the same (well, "covered by"
now, which includes same), and the only way to say that is to talk about the
types. In addition, "cover" is only defined for types (3.4.1(9)), and that is
used in the 2nd sentence. OTOH, the other two sentences give additional rules
about the *subtype* of the return object, and they clearly do need to talk about
the subtypes and not the type.

I can't quite imagine any change that would make this more clear. Breaking up
the paragraph isn't very appealing given its in a bulleted list, and the change
from type to subtype would still remain.

Suggestions are welcome of course, but in the absence of a good one, I don't
think there is anything to change here.

****************************************************************

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent