Detailed when #3532
Detailed when #3532
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In addition to other suggestions, I'd like to get rid of this non-normative text, now that we have clearly defined that it is not allowed:
\begin{nonnormative}
Comment: The semantics are undefined if the function call of an
impure function is part of an algebraic loop.
\end{nonnormative}
|
Phone meeting: If we want to have names:
|
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The request to remove obsolete text in #3532 (review) is still not addressed. Apart from that, it looks OK.
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same as last time:
The request to remove obsolete text in #3532 (review) is still not addressed. Apart from that, it looks OK.
If there is a reason why this text shouldn't be considered obsolete, please explain.
There are several reasons to keep that:
|
|
Pinging for reviews after holidays. |
It is related to this PR, as this PR is introducing this rule that looks crystal clear to me:
|
I have opened a different PR #3571 to clarify that, since as previously stated it is an unrelated issue. |
Co-authored-by: Elena Shmoylova <[email protected]>
HansOlsson
dismissed
henrikt-ma’s stale review
Other text is part of a separate PR
Closes #3499
Closes #3498