Article View: comp.std.c
Article #2536Re: A question about tenative definitions
From: Doug Gwyn
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1991 19:53
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1991 19:53
12 lines
1129 bytes
1129 bytes
In article <4228@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes: >If it *was* the intent of x3j11 to do things in the traditional manner, >I think that they should have worded 3.7.2 so that that would have been >more clear. "Tentative definition" is inherently a kludgy notion. However, it is irrelevant to the actual issue, which was whether or not a "relaxed ref/def" model could be used for external linkage by a conforming implementation. The answer is, yes, it is permitted, because programs that exploit this conforming extension do not have to violate a syntax rule or constraint to do so. However, such programs are definitely not strictly conforming programs.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<15410@smoke.brl.mil>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwynReferences:
<4218@lupine.NCD.COM> <1807@svin02.info.win.tue.nl> <4228@lupine.NCD.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: A question about tenative definitions Message-ID: <15410@smoke.brl.mil> Date: 10 Mar 91 19:53:10 GMT References: <4218@lupine.NCD.COM> <1807@svin02.info.win.tue.nl> <4228@lupine.NCD.COM> Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD. Lines: 12