[ I cc this mail to the AFNOR group as we informally discussed
the role with other standards wrt to C++. I cc to Steve I am
replying to him. ]

Steve Clamage <stephen.clamage@sun.com> writes:

> There are other recognized standards.

Yes. For example, 1./0 is undefined in C, but defined by
IEC/IEEE fp. That's ok.

> For example, POSIX and
> XOPEN place additional requirements on C headers.

Not only additionnal, but contradicting.

> If I remember
> correctly, a POSIX-conforming <stdio.h> must contain a function
> "fileno", that returns a file descriptor for a FILE, but a standard-
> C-conforming <stdio.h> must not contain a function "fileno".
>
> No implementation can conform to both standards simultaneously,

Yes

> but in reality it isn't a problem.

It's difficult enought to conform to _one_ standard. I think that
POSIX did a very bad thing. I hope no one will do the same in
the future.

--

Valentin Bonnard                mailto:bonnardv@pratique.fr
info about C++/a propos du C++: http://pages.pratique.fr/~bonnardv/


[ 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              ]