qrczak@knm.org.pl ("Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk") wrote in message news:<pan.2004.06.29.08.35.12.420047@knm.org.pl>...
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:53:45 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > The 2003 standard was only meant to fix errors in the original 1998
> > standard.  The content of footnote 246 was deleted as a result of DR
> > 144 <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-defects.html#144>
> > but an empty footnote is retained in its place to avoid changing the
> > numbers of following footnotes and so breaking references to them.
>
> Since the intent was to delete the footnote without changing the numbers
> of other footnotes, why hasn't been done just that?

1. On systems with automatic footnote numbering, removing a footnote
changes the numbers of all following footnotes. Putting in numbered
footnotes using systems that don't do automatic numbering is highly
error prone.

2. If there's a gap in the footnote numbering, people will notice, and
report it as a defect. If, on the other hand, there's a message like
the current footnote 246, they ask questions about it, but they don't
report it as a defect.

A solution that would substantially reduce those questions would be
for the  footnote to read something like this: "The previous contents
of this footnote are no longer valid, but it is retained to avoid
renumbering the later footnote, without having a gap in footnote
numbers."

I think the writer of footnote 246 assumed that such things could be
inferred, and need not be explicitly stated.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

"Ben Hutchings" <do-not-spam-benh@bwsint.com> wrote...
>
> The 2003 standard was only meant to fix errors in the original 1998
> standard.  The content of footnote 246 was deleted as a result of DR
> 144 <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-defects.html#144>
> but an empty footnote is retained in its place to avoid changing the
> numbers of following footnotes and so breaking references to them.
> Notice that added footnotes have the suffix "a" for the same reason.

Your reply would have been a better text for said footnote!


---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:53:45 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:

> The 2003 standard was only meant to fix errors in the original 1998
> standard.  The content of footnote 246 was deleted as a result of DR
> 144 <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-defects.html#144>
> but an empty footnote is retained in its place to avoid changing the
> numbers of following footnotes and so breaking references to them.

Since the intent was to delete the footnote without changing the numbers
of other footnotes, why hasn't been done just that?

--
   __("<         Marcin Kowalczyk
   \__/       qrczak@knm.org.pl
    ^^     http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/


---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

Footnote #246 in the Standard says "This footnote is intentionally
empty.". Why does the footnote exist? Anyway, the footnote isn't
empty, it contains some text, namely the text  "246) This footnote is
intentionally empty." without the double quotes.

--                                    --
Abstraction is selective ignorance.
-Andrew Koenig
--                                    --

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

Prateek R Karandikar wrote:
> Footnote #246 in the Standard says "This footnote is intentionally
> empty.". Why does the footnote exist?

The 2003 standard was only meant to fix errors in the original 1998
standard.  The content of footnote 246 was deleted as a result of DR
144 <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-defects.html#144>
but an empty footnote is retained in its place to avoid changing the
numbers of following footnotes and so breaking references to them.
Notice that added footnotes have the suffix "a" for the same reason.

> Anyway, the footnote isn't empty, it contains some text, namely the
> text "246) This footnote is intentionally empty." without the double
> quotes.

In the same way that a pristine piece of paper is not a true blank
page until it is labelled as such, a footnote that merely lacks text
after its label is not a true empty footnote.  See
<http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=39e45a29.514855114%40news.worldonline.nl>.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]