Re: "Ravenscar-like" profile for C/C++

[Craig Carey <research@ijs.co.nz>]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:37:23 -0500, Jack Klein @Spamcop wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 21:12:31 +0200, "Marc Le Roy" wrote in comp.lang.c++:
>> Ioannis Vranos wrote:
...
>> You should have a look to this document:
>> http://polaris.dit.upm.es/~str/proyectos/ork/documents/RP_ug.pdf
>> especially to section 2, that explain why such a restrictive [Ada] profile has
>> been defined.
>
>You should understand that anything in that document is irrelevant in
>comp.lang.c++, and your question just as off-topic here as it was in
>comp.lang.c.
>
>Even if there were a similar document for C and/or C++, it would be
>off-topic in comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++.
>

I was mentioing how Ada 95 is apparently better designed than Zonnon; at
 comp.lang.oberon. 
   Zonnon ( http://zonnon.ethz.ch/ ) is an advancement on Oberon, but it
    has limitations in the multitasking area.

There seems to be no correct "relevance principle that can be buttoned
 onto every Usenet group on programming languages.

Thanks

...
>Whatever "established standards" there might or might not be, they
>would be off-topic in both comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++, unless they
>were part of ISO 9899 and/or ISO 14882.
>
>This discussion, as I already pointed out, belongs in groups like
>news:comp.programming and news:comp.software-eng.  Language
>subsetting, for whatever purpose, is not defined by the ISO standard
>for either C or C++, and is not topical here.  Nor is safety critical
>programming.