Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | > >       Yes, the repairing is the best possible answer.
> | > >       But the point is whether the thing can _really_ be repaired=
 or we'd better
> | > > get a new one.
> | > What exactly do you think is underspecified to the
> | > point it needs to be repaired?
> |       I'd like to hear about this from the author.
> Hmm, are you saying you can't tell us what you think would be
> underspecified about export?
 Definitely, no (i.e. I can't). I never said that I know what is
underspecified.
 I said that the paper, in particular, contains the following text: "Beca=
use
export is underspecified in these and other issues not addressed in the
standard, EDG had to make decisions on questions with unspecified answers.
There is a real danger that if there are ever more implementations they w=
ill
not be perfectly compatible with EDG=92s and each other=92s semantics." f=
rom which
one can conclude that certain underspecifications take place.
--
         With all respect, Sergey.          http://cpp3.virtualave.net/
         mailto : ders at skeptik.net

---
[ 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                       ]