> On 6 Jul 2016, at 16:16, Robinson, Paul <paul.robin...@sony.com> wrote: > > > > As Daniel pointed out, an enumeration like that knows no bounds, and > > starting a list invites endless what-if questions. That's why I settled > > for a more qualitative statement; we have to acknowledge that ultimately > > there's a judgement call on the part of the enforcement committee, but > > the wording as it was felt a little too wide-open for me. > > That I was explicitly *not* what I was suggesting an enumeration of all > possible cases, I was suggesting an additional document describing > hypothetical case studies and whether they would be covered. There is > ample precedent for this in law (for example, much of the tax code in the > UK comes along with guidance notes, which are not considered legally > binding but provide people with rough rules of thumb) and does not > degenerate into an attempt to list every possible case. > > David
Ah, okay! Like non-normative guidance/motivation text in a standards document. That works. --paulr _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
