From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4f36545ebe2d5763 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th Date: 2000/03/09 Message-ID: <8a803s$904$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 595105262 References: <368601769wnr@natron.demon.co.uk> <89j9vq$lvp$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38c463df@eeyore.callnetuk.com> <8a6f1u$5l3$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x28.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Mar 09 10:58:05 2000 GMT X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 2000-03-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Brian Rogoff wrote: > A better argument would note that the existence of compiler > bugs implies that few compilers implement any standard, but > this sort of nitpicking, while logically correct, is > unhelpful. We are talking about stability of the standard here. The fact that compilers have bugs does not necessarily speak to this. In some obscure cases, we do tune up the standard to deal with minor flaws (this is what the ongoing work of the AI's is about), but these are almost always issues of minimal importance. In any case, there is a big difference between compilers having bugs in obscure features, and a C++ compiler that does not implement exceptions (a required feature of C++) in a manner compatible with the standard, not because of any bug, but because quite deliberately, exceptions have not been implemented, or have been implemented in a manner different from that specified in the standard. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.