Re: location lists from longer ago

[Michael Eager <eager at eagercon dot com>]

Todd Allen wrote:
> 
>    From the location list discussion that appears to have wrapped up sometime
>    last month, what was the result?  It looks like there were no proposals
>    that survived.  So presumably the text from 2.0.0 was left as is.  It
>    seemed like the consensus was that the "multiple locations, all with the
>    same value" model was what most people thought that text meant.  Is that
>    the consensus?

I assume that you are referring to text from section 2.5.4:

	Address ranges may overlap. When they do, they describe a situation 
	in which an object exists simultaneously in more than one place. If 
	all of the address ranges in a given location list do not collectively 			cover the entire range over which the object
in question is defined, 
	it is assumed that the object is not available for the portion of the 
	range that is not covered.

There was discussion about a proposal which, in passing, suggested that 
this text had some meaning other than that given by a simple reading of 
the text. No proposal was offered to alter this text, although some 
suggestions were made about possible editorial commentary, none of which 
would have altered the wording or meaning of the paragraph.  

As a matter of process, lacking a concrete proposal to make a
change to the Dwarf 2 specification, no change is made.  

Since there was neither a proposal to change this text, nor any 
discussion about any proposed change to this text, I believe that 
the safest assumption is that the text is reasonably clear as written.

An observation:  the paragraph discusses the places where an object
may be found, not its value(s).  

-- 
Michael Eager	 Eager Consulting     eager@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306  650-325-8077