Re: Required Metrics

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>]

In article <8emkv7$uf6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:

> > Alternate phrasing of the question: If a requirement is in
the
> > standard, and no one makes an effort to follow it, what's
the
> > requirement doing in the standard? Why not have an
interpretation that
> > says, in essence: "Oops. Never mind"? Or am I just missing
some
> > fundamental point here?


Well of course, this should be the point of view. And indeed
properly following that point of view would have avoided all
the meaningless documentation requirements in the RM.

The ARG does in fact sometimes decide that things that look
like requirements in the RM are meaningess. For instance we
recently discovered that the Suppress (.., On=> ...) form
of this pragma is completely meaningless, and the language
in the standard is bogus -- compilers do different things,
and what appears like a requirement is in fact in practice
a statement that this feature is completely implementation
dependent.



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.