From 6672256679907595164 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,82b9a0e2d78eb842 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-13 19:35:35 PST Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!msunews!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!news From: maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) Subject: Re: Sealed Classes Message-ID: Sender: news@ucc.su.OZ.AU Nntp-Posting-Host: physics.su.oz.au Organization: School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia References: <3jfilh$m8s@panix3.panix.com> <1995Mar11.130641.21198@mole-end.matawan.nj.us> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 03:05:34 GMT Lines: 22 In article , John Max Skaller wrote: > > I suggest Rationale can be added to the Working Paper itself. >Provided it is _clearly_ marked as such so it is taken as explanatory >rather than normative. I've just been told that the WP has been edited so that Rationale and explanatory material is labelled -- and retained -- in the text. Which I think is a good thing. It is hard to understand -- and verify -- a set of complex rules without knowing the purpose of the rules. The ARM is a fine example of a document which uses such "annotation" effectively. We lost quite a bit dropping the commentary out to create the initial WP. -- JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au Maxtal Pty Ltd, 81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21 NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA Phone: 61-2-566-2189