Re: Open issue: error codes

I'm also happy with Three or Four; I agree that having 'at a glance' definitions in place would be preferable, if it doesn't significantly break the flow of the text.

_________________
Tomos Hillman
eXpertML Ltd
+44 7793 242058
On 18 Apr 2022, 10:12 +0100, Norm Tovey-Walsh <norm@saxonica.com>, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the interest of starting substantive email discussion, I’m going to
> send out several messages about open issues. I’ll state my personal
> opinions about how I’d like to see them resolved. I encourage everyone
> in the CG to reply with their opinions. (I have been in working groups
> where progress was made by email!)
>
> My take on the error codes draft is that we might still get consensus on
> proposals three or four. I think we have recorded objections to
> proposals one and two.
>
> Proposal three is to use “(error Xxxx)” in the prose, with a link to an
> appendix of error codes.
>
> Proposal four is to accept proposal three but also to add the text of
> the error message(s) in new paragraphs below the where the error occurs.
>
> I’m happy with either three or four. In the interest of being concrete,
> I’ll express a slight preference for four. I think it’ll make the draft
> easier to understand on a first reading and I think the error paragraphs
> are distinct enough that they’re easy to skip over on subsequent readings.
>
> Be seeing you,
> norm
>
> --
> Norm Tovey-Walsh
> Saxonica