!standard 09.01 (02) 98-03-27 AI95-00116/01 !class binding interpretation 98-03-27 !status ARG Approved (with changes) 13-0-0 95-11-01 !status work item 96-04-04 !status received 96-04-04 !priority Low !difficulty Easy !subject Elaboration of task type with no task_definition !summary 96-04-04 For a task_type_declaration with no task_definition, an empty task_definition is assumed. !question 96-04-04 A legal task_type_declaration is task type TT; By the grammar in paragraph 2, this task_type_declaration does not include a task_definition. Paragraph 10 says that the elaboration of a task declaration elaborates the task_definition; what if there isn't one? Paragraph 11 says the elaboration of a task_definition creates the task type and its first subtype; if there is no task_definition, when are the task type and its first subtype created? The intent seems obvious. A good fix would be to state that task type TT; is equivalent to task type TT is end TT; providing an implicit task_definition. !recommendation 98-03-27 (See summary.) !wording 98-03-27 !discussion 98-03-27 The intent is clear, and is as stated in the summary, above. !appendix 96-04-04 !section 9.1(02) !subject Elaboration of task type with no task_definition !reference RM95-9.1(2) !reference RM95-9.1(10,11) !from Keith Thompson 95-11-17 !reference 95-5392.a Keith Thompson 95-11-17>> A legal task_type_declaration is task type TT; By the grammar in paragraph 2, this task_type_declaration does not include a task_definition. Paragraph 10 says that the elaboration of a task declaration elaborates the task_definition; what if there isn't one? Paragraph 11 says the elaboration of a task_definition creates the task type and its first subtype; if there is no task_definition, when are the task type and its first subtype created? The intent seems obvious. A good fix would be to state that task type TT; is equivalent to task type TT is end TT; providing an implicit task_definition. ****************************************************************