From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Representation clauses and streams
Date: 2000/01/03
Date: 2000-01-03T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <wcc3dsf9xrn.fsf@world.std.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 84p1ot$c7n$1@nnrp1.deja.com
Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:
> Apparently some other compilers failed to follow the RM advice
> in the first place, which is what is giving rise to the push
> to revise the language here.
I don't think other compilers failed to follow the RM advice. I think
what happened is that different compilers chose different base ranges,
so even if all compilers follow the Advice, they don't all get the same
answer. Users griped about this, which caused the ARG to get involved.
> A tricky situation ....
Indeed.
- Bob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-01-03 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-12-29 0:00 Representation clauses and streams Florian Weimer
1999-12-29 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
1999-12-29 0:00 ` Florian Weimer
1999-12-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-12-30 0:00 ` Florian Weimer
2000-01-02 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
2000-01-03 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
2000-01-03 0:00 ` Robert A Duff [this message]
2000-01-03 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
2000-01-04 0:00 ` Florian Weimer
2000-01-04 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox