W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > May 1997

Re: Conformance

From: Digitome Ltd. <digitome@iol.ie>
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 08:21:28 +0100
Message-Id: <199705280745.IAA08853@mail.iol.ie>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
>> I agree that there are things that are "not there" in any 
>> language spec. I.e. from C
>>     x = foo (++x,x--);
>> Is syntactically valid but has a number of possible interpretations
>> that the core C spec (i.e. BNF) does not try to iron out -
[Lee Quin]
>This is not correct.  Not only is it implementation specific, but it
>is explicitly defined as being implementation specific and therefore
>not portable.

In what sense is what I have said here "not correct". Your 
comment about portability is precisely the point I am making.
The next paragraph of my posting (which you do not quote) went
on to say:-

>- The order of evaluation of the paramaters is 
>"implemention specific". But at least the spec. enumerates
>things that are implementation specific.

Just seeking clarification:-)

Sean Mc Grath

Digitome Electronic Publishing
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 1997 03:46:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:26 UTC