From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24530 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2003 18:42:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 24500 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2003 18:42:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Aug 2003 18:42:08 -0000 Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h74IfRSu023836; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 20:41:27 +0200 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h74IfQZs023835; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 20:41:26 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f To: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Cc: aoliva@redhat.com, bernds@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, jbuck@synopsys.com, rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de, s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl Subject: Re: std::pow implementation References: <20030804183552.06FD5F2D85@nile.gnat.com> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: <20030804183552.06FD5F2D85@nile.gnat.com> Organization: Integrable Solutions Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 18:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00206.txt.bz2 dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes: | > I did appeal to two sources: both the ISO standard and "The Design and | > Evolution of C++". I included the ISO standard definition because it | > gives the wording on the current C++ definition and it is the result | > long elaboration on wordings that took many resources, just to make | > sure that thee substitution meaning is conveyed. I did also appeal | > to the D&E because it does give references to the raison d'etre of | > inline in C++. You might choose to ignore that C++ is an "evolved" | > language and ignore its history, but that is a not mistake I would | > like GCC to make. C++ simply is not Ada. | | The standard is a stand alone document, approved by ISO as such. It's meaning | if it has any meaning must be able to be deduced from its intrinsic content | like any other language standard. You cannot apply "history" to its | interpretation. I do not appeal to its history for interpretation. I do appeal to its story to make sure that people arguing for "inlining in general" do have all the context in mind. And no, the ISO standard does not contain all the context of every feature. If you don't know history, you know nothing. [...] | The Ada standard does have a useful innovation from a pragmatic point of view C++ is not Ada and Ada is C++. -- Gaby