On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 14:10 +0100, Eike Rathke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wednesday, 2010-01-13 15:56:09 -0700, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
>
> > > Do we really mean to say that constraint violations are errors in some
> > > functions, but not in others?
> >
> > please see 5.2: "If a constraint is not met, the function/operator
> > should return an Error unless otherwise noted."
>
> Shouldn't that be "If a constraint is not met, the function/operator
> *shall* return an error unless otherwise noted" instead?
>
Personally I believe there are too many "should"s in the document and I
agree that this one ought to be a "shall".
Andreas
--
Andreas J. Guelzow <>
