Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!world!mkahl
From: mkahl@world.std.com (Michael Kahl)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Structure tags
Message-ID: <1991Feb12.024839.3487@world.std.com>
Date: 12 Feb 91 02:48:39 GMT
References: <15147@smoke.brl.mil> <1991Feb10.185918.10775@world.std.com> <15158@smoke.brl.mil>
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Lines: 26

Thank you for that more detailed response.  As I now see it, our disagreement
stemmed from my interpretation of the term "enclosing scope".  I took that to
mean "a scope at a higher level", e.g. global scope vs. local scope.  It seems
that you (and the Standard) are using it simply to mean "a scope whose extent
includes the entire (enclosed) scope".  I grant that this is a reasonable, if
surprising (to me), use of the term, and it does make the Standard read as you
say.

>I don't recall "insulting your intelligence".

Perhaps, not knowing you, I misread you.  However, I'm sure you can imagine
how I might have perceived a reply which failed to address the point I was
making, instead suggesting I might lack the ability to read a clear spec, as
representing an insult to my intelligence.  I'm pleased to hear you did not
mean it the way it came out.

>I must say I don't see how you could misread the standard the way you have.

I hope that now you can.  I assumed "enclosing scope" meant "higher-level"
scope.  I don't think this was unreasonable, although I see you meant it more
literally.  I appreciate the clarification.

-- 
Michael Kahl, Symantec Corporation
mkahl@world.std.com  -or-  75236.3146@compuserve.com
Disclaimer:  Keep this quiet; what my employer doesn't know won't get me fired.