In article <37bfe230.8953593@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
dHarrison@worldnet.att.net says...
> Anyone read 14.7.3/7 lately? The last sentence seems out of place in a
> formal document, but having read the preceding sentence, I think it's
> obvious how the author was feeling at the time, and thus forgivable. Maybe.
> :)

Perhaps more standards should be written in this manner!  After all, it
makes very clear the consequences of failing to observe the constraints.
Not "undefined", "ambiguous", etc. but "a trial such as to kindle self-
immolation".  I like that.

--
Michael Lee Finney
michael.finney@acm.org
---
[ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

Doug Harrison wrote:
>
> Anyone read 14.7.3/7 lately? The last sentence seems out of place in a
> formal document, but having read the preceding sentence, I think it's
> obvious how the author was feeling at the time, and thus forgivable. Maybe.
> :)
>
>
That's hilarious - I always thought that statement was kinda colorful
for a standard document, but I never realized it was a limerick.
Instead of being forgivable, I think it's quite laudable - to be able to
embed a piece of artful incongruence in an otherwise dry document
without detracting from its primary purpose requires talent, in my op
;-)
-fais


[ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

Anyone read 14.7.3/7 lately? The last sentence seems out of place in a
formal document, but having read the preceding sentence, I think it's
obvious how the author was feeling at the time, and thus forgivable. Maybe.
:)

--
Doug Harrison
dHarrison@worldnet.att.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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

That paragraph is one of those "minor" changes that we're told were made
after the Dec 96 draft was released. The whole section on explicit
specialization was changed substantially. It's just one reason why I cringe
when people suggest that the 12/96 draft will do for folks who don't want to
spend $18 or read PDF.

Doug Harrison wrote in message
<37bfe230.8953593@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>Anyone read 14.7.3/7 lately?




[ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]