Re: Implicit Declaration
- From: jameskuyper <jameskuyper@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 11:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Eric Sosman wrote:
James Kuyper wrote:....
Any section titled "Constraints" clearly conveys constraints; I don't
think the definition provided in 3.8p1 is sufficiently clear to allow
unambiguous application of that term to any rule specified outside of a
"Constraints" section.
Tempests in teapots anyhow, I think. As far as I can see, either a
constraint violation or a syntax violation (if the two are different)
elicits exactly the same response, to wit, "at least one diagnostic
message." If there's any place in the Standard where CV and SV are
given different treatment, I'm unaware of it (but would appreciate
someone pointing it out to me if it's there).
The standard certainly treats them differently, putting syntax rules
in sections named "Syntax", and summarizing them in Annex A, while it
places constraints in sections named "Constraints". Again, that would
appear to be redundant if all syntax rules also constitute
constraints.
Section 4.2 says 'If a ‘‘shall’’ or ‘‘shall not’’ requirement that
appears outside of a constraint is violated, the
behavior is undefined.'. However, that doesn't help much with making
this distinction, since the word "shall" never occurs in the Syntax
sections.
.
- References:
- Implicit Declaration
- From: prasoonthegreat
- Re: Implicit Declaration
- From: Eric Sosman
- Re: Implicit Declaration
- From: James Kuyper
- Re: Implicit Declaration
- From: Eric Sosman
- Re: Implicit Declaration
- From: James Kuyper
- Re: Implicit Declaration
- From: Eric Sosman
- Implicit Declaration
- Prev by Date: Re: Can we suggest google to help us eleminate these spam posting
- Next by Date: Re: Float comparison
- Previous by thread: Re: Implicit Declaration
- Next by thread: Re: Implicit Declaration
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|