In article <72sfkc$6jl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  AllanW@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Biju Thomas wrote:
> > > In 10.4/2 of the standard, there is a note, saying:
> > >
> > > "A function declaration cannot provide both a pure specifier and a
> > > definition".
>
> In article <3651694B.49B6@uk.geopak-tms.com>,
>   paul.grealish@uk.geopak-tms.com wrote:
> > So there is.  And there's even an example:
> >  struct C {
> >      virtual void f() { }=0; // ill-formed
> >  };
> >
> > But, of course the 'ill-formed' line should read:
> >
> >      virtual void f() =0 { }
> >
> > Maybe this has been corrected in the Standard proper?
>
> No, this section is word-for-word identical to CD2, even to
> the placement of the =0 in the "ill-formed" example.
>
> The comment is not incorrect, as far as it goes; the
> statement is in fact ill-formed.
>
> Also this is a note, and therefore non-normative.

I have seen several statements to that effect in these newsgroups - "if it's
in a footnote, it doesn't count".  Please would someone tell me where in the
Standard it states that footnotes are non-normative?  I don't believe it
states that anywhere.

I really would like a clarification on this.  After all, if they are
non-normative, then what's the point in having them?

[snip]

--
Jim

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
---
[ 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              ]

jim.hyslop@leitch.com wrote:
>
> In article <72sfkc$6jl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>   AllanW@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > Biju Thomas wrote:
> > > > In 10.4/2 of the standard, there is a note, saying:
> > > >
> > > > "A function declaration cannot provide both a pure specifier and a
> > > > definition".
> >
> > In article <3651694B.49B6@uk.geopak-tms.com>,
> >   paul.grealish@uk.geopak-tms.com wrote:
> > > So there is.  And there's even an example:
> > >     struct C {
> > >         virtual void f() { }=0; // ill-formed
> > >     };
> > >
> > > But, of course the 'ill-formed' line should read:
> > >
> > >         virtual void f() =0 { }
> > >
> > > Maybe this has been corrected in the Standard proper?
> >
> > No, this section is word-for-word identical to CD2, even to
> > the placement of the =0 in the "ill-formed" example.
> >
> > The comment is not incorrect, as far as it goes; the
> > statement is in fact ill-formed.
> >
> > Also this is a note, and therefore non-normative.
>
> I have seen several statements to that effect in these newsgroups - "if it's
> in a footnote, it doesn't count".  Please would someone tell me where in the
> Standard it states that footnotes are non-normative?  I don't believe it
> states that anywhere.
>
> I really would like a clarification on this.  After all, if they are
> non-normative, then what's the point in having them?

In section 17.3.1, it says 'Paragraphs labelled "Note(s):" or
"Example(s):" are informative, other paragraphs are normative.' In
context, this seems to apply only to the sections describing the C++
standard library. I couldn't find a comparable statement with wider
applicability.

By comparison, the wording in the C9X standard is much clearer. In
paragraph 2 of the forward: "International Standards are drafted in
accordance with the rules given in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 3.
Accordingly, annexes F and I form a normative part of this standard;
this foreword, the introduction, notes, footnotes, examples, annexes A,
B, C, D, E, G, H, J, K, the bibliography, and the index are for
information only."

Now, if the C++ standard was drafted in accordance with those same
rules, they might apply even if it doesn't say so explicitly (except for
a different list of appendices). Since the forward is itself for
information only, those rules might not require that C++ provide
comparable wording.


[ 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              ]

In article <36559934.15FB@wizard.net>, James Kuyper <kuyper@wizard.net>
writes
>By comparison, the wording in the C9X standard is much clearer. In
>paragraph 2 of the forward: "International Standards are drafted in
>accordance with the rules given in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 3.
>Accordingly, annexes F and I form a normative part of this standard;
>this foreword, the introduction, notes, footnotes, examples, annexes A,
>B, C, D, E, G, H, J, K, the bibliography, and the index are for
>information only."
>
>Now, if the C++ standard was drafted in accordance with those same
>rules, they might apply even if it doesn't say so explicitly (except for
>a different list of appendices). Since the forward is itself for
>information only, those rules might not require that C++ provide
>comparable wording.

However note that the statement as given in C9X and the equivalent in
C90 specifically makes the statement informative:)  Of course an ISO
standard is drafted under the relevant ISO rules and so you are expected
to know that notes, footnotes and examples are non-normative.


Francis Glassborow      Chair of Association of C & C++ Users
64 Southfield Rd
Oxford OX4 1PA          +44(0)1865 246490
All opinions are mine and do not represent those of any organisation


[ 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              ]