| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
John Pryce wrote:
My Question: Is "specifying a function as an IEPF" any business of P1788?
Personally, no, I don't think so:-- I think, as George points out, most of the world will expect "anything I can code" should be supported. This almost certainly would be the case, e.g., in popular programming languages such as C/C++.
-- However, its easy enough for the implementer of a proprietary language or language extension to restrict the users ability to use non-IEPFs for a particular application, if so desired. But P1788 really has no say or control about this, IMO. That is up to the language-specific commitees and/or compiler designers.
-- The behavior of non-IEPFs needs to be specified by P1788, anyways, for implementations that support "anything I can code".
Nate