home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: solon.com!not-for-mail
- From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.lang.c.moderated
- Subject: Re: Integral promotion.
- Date: 5 Mar 1996 06:27:08 -0600
- Organization: Planet Internet
- Sender: clc@solutions.solon.com
- Approved: clc@solutions.solon.com
- Message-ID: <4hhbus$cen@solutions.solon.com>
- References: <4fstj7$2l6@solutions.solon.com> <4g27gn$q5k@solutions.solon.com> <4gnbbp$bhu@solutions.solon.com> <4gq8nn$opk@solutions.solon.com> <4ha88q$jtn@solutions.solon.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: solutions.solon.com
- X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
-
- stanr@tiac.net (Stan Ryckman) wrote:
-
- >In article <4gq8nn$opk@solutions.solon.com>, <msb@sq.com> wrote:
- >>
- >>Section 4/1.7:
- >># An implementation shall be accompanied by a document that defines all
- >># implementation-defined characteristics and all extensions.
-
- >I wonder... does the standard define "a document?"
-
- That would be circular: the "standard" _is_ a document.
-
- >To me this implies that a compiler which provided all such information,
- >but only in "on-line help" or something, might not be conforming.
-
- >Thoughts?
-
- On-line help falls under the category of "electronic documents", as
- far as I'm concerned... In view of some documentation (on-line or
- printed) I have seen, I would be more concerned with exactly _how_ the
- "document" defines all implementation-defined issues (i.e. is one
- supposed to understand what they're saying?).
-
-
- ==
- Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
- Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
- mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
-
- ========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
-