- From: Digitome Ltd. <digitome@iol.ie>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 08:21:28 +0100
- 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 The next paragraph of my posting (which you do not quote) went on to say:- 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 Sean Mc Grath sean@digitome.com Digitome Electronic Publishing http://www.digitome.com
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 1997 03:46:00 UTC