🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7039@skye.ed.ac.uk>, richard@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul31.010941.7282@crd.ge.com> volpe@ausable.crd.ge.com writes:
|> >|> *If* the standard allows "unnecessary" padding, this program is not
|> >|> strictly conforming.
|> 
|> >PRO: "But *if* unnecessary padding is ok, *then* the program isn't
|> >      Strictly Conforming, *therefore* the as-if rule still applies, 
|> >      *therefore* unnecessary padding is ok!"
|> 
|> You're over-interpreting my statement.  I wasn't trying to prove that
|> unnecessary padding is ok.  I was merely pointing out that it couldn't

Ok.

|> be a strictly conforming program that behaved differently under the
|> two interpretations, because under one of them it wouldn't be strictly
|> conforming.

There are no "two interpretations". That's the whole point. The "other
interpretation" was shot down by the strictly conforming program that
prints different results under the non-literal interpretation.

|> 
|> It appears to be the case that you can't write a strictly conforming
|> program that prints the value of any implementation-defined parameter.

Correct, but whether or not an implementation uses unnecessary padding
is NOT an implementation-defined parameter, according to a literal
reading of the Standard. The program presented is strictly conforming.

-- 
==================
Chris Volpe
G.E. Corporate R&D
volpecr@crd.ge.com