Re: A query about the conformance questionnaire
P1788
I raised an I/O point with Christian, below. In the text on Input should we:
- Say the rule for "snipping" a stream is language-defined (which I guess
is the usual case, rather than being implementation-defined?) and shall
be documented by the implementation?
- Say the rule is implementation-defined, and shall be documented?
- Specify such a rule, e.g. by saying it shall conform to what some
popular language does by default?
- Say nothing about this rule, as at present?
He is right that if the main text says nothing about it, it can't appear in
the conformance clause.
John Pryce
On 27 Feb 2015, at 21:16, Christian Keil <c.keil@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Am Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:17:08 +0000
> schrieb John Pryce <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> I've been looking over an informal log that I kept of P1788 issues
>> needing to be sorted.
>>
>> A point relates to 4.4 c) 10): "What methods are used to read or write
>> strings from or to character streams? (see 13.1)." Some of P1788
>> discussed at one time: when reading a 1788-defined item from a stream,
>> where is the stream "snipped"? That is, at what character does reading
>> the next item begin? It was decided to leave it language or
>> implementation defined. But as such, it seems a significant point that
>> an implementation must document. Should you not add a sentence about it
>> here?
>
> sorry for the late reply. I was checking the document section on this but
> didn't find any details on this "snipping". I wouldn't want to introduce
> items in the conformance section that are not described anywhere else in
> the document. Is this mentioned anywhere?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christian