James Kanze wrote:
[...]
> I would suggest that the next version introduce a new category of error
> for these cases: a compiler is not required to diagnose an error, but if
> it doesn't the program must function correctly.  (In the case of the
> library, this would mean that if you include at least one library
> header, and use a library functionality not defined in any of the
> library headers included, the program is ill-formed, but the compiler is
> not required to diagnose the error.  I believe that this formulation is
> the equivalent to allowing any library header to include any other.)

A long time ago the IBM Pascal Reference Manual documented similar
situations as "errors not caught".

Cheers,
Nicola Musatti

---
[ 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                       ]