From: stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft)
Subject: Re: [Q] Portability of <= and >= with real operands
Date: 1996/12/01
Date: 1996-12-01T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1qwF3.z4.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 252531213wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk
JP Thornley (jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: I'm having difficulty understanding the statements in the Ada
: Quality and Style Guide on the portability of relational expressions
: with real operands:-
: Section 5.5.6 - "... the use of <= is more portable than either < or ="
This is a bug in AQ&S. Several of the reviewers of AQ&S pointed out
this mistake, but alas, it somehow managed to slip through. One claim
was that this statement was due to Norman Cohen, and hence indisputable.
However, Norm (or at least NC1, as we used to call his non-alter-ego ;-)
has since disavowed all connection with this statement.
: Phil Thornley
: | JP Thornley EMail jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk |
-Tucker Taft stt@inmet.com http://www.inmet.com/~stt/
Intermetrics, Inc. Cambridge, MA USA
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1996-12-01 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1996-11-29 0:00 [Q] Portability of <= and >= with real operands JP Thornley
1996-11-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-12-03 0:00 ` Keith Thompson
1996-12-03 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-12-03 0:00 ` Thomas Koenig
1996-12-03 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1996-12-03 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1996-12-03 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-12-04 0:00 ` Keith Thompson
1996-12-01 0:00 ` Tucker Taft [this message]
1996-12-02 0:00 ` Norman H. Cohen
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox