| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear colleagues,
I have the same fear! 1788.1 would specify a subset of the features of 1788. Hence, everything that is not specified in 1788.1 (e.g. the functions that were listed earlier) can eventually be implemented in such a way that it is contradictory to the requirements of the full standard... Andreas Am 04.12.2014 um 16:03 schrieb Vincent Lefevre: On 2014-12-01 21:59:55 -0600, Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:It is meant by its champion (Ned Nedialkov) to be C): 1788.1 is meant to be a proper subset of the 1788 set-based flavor. A P1788.1-conforming program is meant to be 1788-conforming, but not visa versa.I don't think so. A P1788.1-conforming program may depend on features that are out of scope of P1788.1, which may prevent the program from being 1788-conforming. --
Dr.-Ing. Andreas Rauh Chair of Mechatronics University of Rostock Justus-von-Liebig-Weg 6 D-18059 Rostock, GERMANY Tel: +49 (0)381 498-9216 Fax: +49 (0)381 498-9092 e-Mail: andreas.rauh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx url: www.com.uni-rostock.de |