Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Structure tags
Message-ID: <15158@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 11 Feb 91 08:48:33 GMT
References: <1991Feb9.164052.9691@world.std.com> <15147@smoke.brl.mil> <1991Feb10.185918.10775@world.std.com>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 20

In article <1991Feb10.185918.10775@world.std.com> mkahl@world.std.com (Michael Kahl) writes:
>However, if you cannot refrain from insulting my intelligence, please don't
>bother to reply.

I don't recall "insulting your intelligence".  However, now that you
have given me the opportunity I must say I don't see how you could
misread the standard the way you have.  3.1.2.1 makes it clear what
the precise scope of structure tags is, and any decent dictionary
would explain what "enclosing" means.  The particular wart that I
alluded to previously in 3.5.2.1 that was carefully planted into the
standard specifically to achieve this "clear the tag from the name
space" function was completely omitted from the initial discussion,
which tried to "reason out" what the standard requires from other
wording in the standard that was simply not germane to the issue.

I was involved in X3J11 discussions of precisely this issue, and am
sure that I understand what the committe meant in this regard (which
happens to also be what the standard specifies, quite clearly in my
opinion).  As I said, if you don't believe me and want a formal
interpretation, you should request one through the proper channels.