🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <16583@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>In article <678149027.20102@mindcraft.com> karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish) writes:
>>Is there a restriction that would prevent the implementation
>>from producing a diagnostic for (1)?
>Literally speaking, an implementation can generate spurious diagnostics
>if it wishes.
Yes, almost well-known by now.

>However, there is supposed to be a well-defined notion of
>"accepting" a strictly conforming program,
Yes, the correct output, determined by the program, must be produced.

>and such a diagnostic if it is indeed generated should be syntactically
>distinguishable from a real diagnostic
This is a different issue, and "should" is a weasel-word.
For quality of implementation, I think everyone would agree that such
diagnostics should be syntactically distinguishable and should serve some
useful purpose etc. etc.  However, the standard does not require it.

>Why would they generate diagnostics for perfectly fine code?
The standard doesn't demand an answer to this question.  Even though we dislike
low-quality implementations, this question is irrelevant (for this newsgroup).
--
Norman Diamond       diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.
Permission is granted to feel this signature, but not to look at it.