Defect Report concerning: IEEE Std. 1003.1-1996, ISO/IEC 9945-1:1996 - C API
Clause: 6.5.3.2 P 162, Line 578
PASC Interpretation Ref: pasc-1003.1-112
Topic: lseek and the "gap"

This is an unapproved interpretation of PASC 1003.1-1996, ISO/IEC 9945-1:1996 - C API.

Use of the information contained in this unapproved document is at your own risk.

Last update: 10 April,2001 

								1003.1-96  #112

 _____________________________________________________________________________

	Interpretation Number:	XXXX
	Topic:			lseek and the "gap"
	Relevant Sections:	6.5.3.2 P 162, Line 578


PASC Interpretation Request: (Defect Report)
----------------------------  
        Date: 2000 June 16
	Ref: XSH 393

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

 7  Defect Report concerning (number and title of International Standard
    or DIS final text, if applicable): 

IEEE Std 1003.1-1996 (incorporates 1003.1-1990, 1003.1b-1993, 1003.1c-1995,
1003.1i-1995) (ISO 9945-1:1996)

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

 8  Qualifier (e.g. error, omission, clarification required):

1

Error=1 , Omission=2, Clarification=3

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

 9  References in document (e.g. page, clause, figure, and/or table
    numbers):

P 162, Line 578

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

10  Nature of defect (complete, concise explanation of the perceived
    problem):


"in the gap" is not well defined; it needs a definition to assure that
there is no future disagreement on the meaning.  (The problem is that
"gap" is the sort of word you'd expect to have a defined meaning, and
it doesn't.  In the absence of a defined meaning, the reader is left
to guess.)


------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

11  Solution proposed by the submitter (optional):

"In the region of the file not actually written." seems OK.  This
appears to be ordinary english.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 




Interpretation response
------------------------
The standard is clear, and the term is well understood as part of
the English language. No change is required.

Rationale
-------------
None.

Forwarded to Interpretations group: 19 June 2000
Proposed resolution: 25 July 2000
Finalised Interpretation: 29 August 2000