From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16411 invoked by alias); 22 Jul 2011 18:41:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 16403 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Jul 2011 18:41:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ew0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-ew0-f47.google.com) (209.85.215.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:41:11 +0000 Received: by ewy5 with SMTP id 5so2225100ewy.20 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:41:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.27.143 with SMTP id i15mr865203ebc.38.1311360070181; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:41:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.29.2 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:41:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4E283680.7040704@gmail.com> <20110721174429.GB12907@synopsys.com> <4E28BA8E.6090400@gmail.com> <20110722112215.utk9zqjq0c0wss0o-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:12:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: C99 Status - inttypes.h From: James Dennett To: "Paulo J. Matos" Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-07/txt/msg00428.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > On 22/07/11 16:22, Joern Rennecke wrote: >>> >>> I have to disagree, library issue means that it's an issue with the >>> library, not gcc. >> >> It still makes sense to clarify the language to indicate that, depending >> on >> the library used, this might be, in fact, a library non-issue. >> > > We might be interpreting this differently. When I you it's a "library > issue", I understand it as begin something that has to do with the library, > not that it is a definite problem with the library. Therefore if I want to > see what's the feature status I should check the library documentation. I > didn't think that saying it is a library issue would mean that it is > definitely broken/missing in the library. > > Then again my native language is not english. However, by raising this > you're proving your point. If we can avoid different interpretations then > better. While your use of the term "a library issue" meaning roughly "the responsibility of the library" is entirely correct, unfortunately the term "issue" has been hijacked of late as a euphemism for "problem", which leaves us without a good, unambiguous way to refer to issues that may not, in fact, be problems. -- James