_____________________________________________________________________________
Notice: This is an unapproved draft interpretation. Use at
your own risk.  


 _____________________________________________________________________________
 						PASC Interpretation reference
							1003.13-2003  #002

 _____________________________________________________________________________

	Interpretation Number:	002
	Topic:			POSIX_TIMEOUTS
	Relevant Sections:	B-1


PASC Interpretation Request:
----------------------------  

Reference #2

        From: Paul Chen
        Date: 2006 May 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

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

AEP:POSIX(R) Realtime and Embedded Application Support: IEEE Std 1003.13-2003

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

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

2

Error=1 , Omission=2, Clarification=3

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

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

Table B-1, pg 116

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

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


A typo in Table B-1:
   "_POSIX_THREADS and POSIX_TIMEOUTS" 

"POSIX_TIMEOUTS" is missing a leading '_' -- it should be "_POSIX_TIMEOUTS." 

There are 18 uses of "_POSIX_TIMEOUTS" in the standard, and only one of "POSIX_TIMEOUTS," and that usage is on the same page and context as four other uses of "_POSIX_TIMEOUTS" (pg 116). It would seem that "_POSIX_TIMEOUTS" is the correct syntax.

This is a very minor typo but it's related to an interpretation request that I will file next, so for completeness I'm filing this request.

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

11  Solution proposed by the submitter (optional):

Insert the missing '_'



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

Interpretation:
---------------

This appears to be an editorial defect in the standard, and
should have had a leading underscore

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

Notes to editors (not part of this interpretation)
-------------------------------------------------

This should be reported to the IEEE staff editor as this is
an editorial defect for which an errata could be issued.

Forwarded to interpretations group: 30 May 2006
Proposed resolution: 16 August 2006
Approved: Thu Oct 19 17:33:12 BST 2006