Yeah, I don't find that description clear either. One shouldn't have to
be a lawyer in order to decrypt such standards!
Of course, FPC can follow its own standard, but it should be one that
everyone agrees on. While I think we shouldn't live in the shadow of
Delphi or be jammed in the realm of backwards compatibility, I'm a bit
wary if there are quirks or errors that might otherwise cause people to
back away from FPC rather than adapt their code to conform to it.
But just from a practicality point of view, I think a run-time error is
better in this instance because you may be able to justify a particular
input value not being possible, and so not need to add code for it in
your case block, but if such a value ends up reaching the case block
anyway, then you deserve to endure a run-time error because it means you
haven't covered it properly.
Speaking of books and documentation, what's out there for Free Pascal in
particular?
Gareth aka. Kit
P.S. I like to think my own design specs are a lot clearer than that ISO!
On 30/07/2019 09:29, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, thaddy wrote:
Telling.
NOTES
1. If it is possible to construct a program in which the violation or
non-violation of this International Standard requires knowledge of the
data read by the program or the implementation definition of
implementation-defined features, then violation of that requirement is
classified as an error. Processors may report on such violations of
the requirement without such knowledge, but there always remain some
cases that require execution, simulated execution, or proof procedures
with the required knowledge. Requirements that can be verified without
such knowledge are not classified as errors.
Hm.
Even after reading this 5 times, I still am not sure I understand the
above. The people who wrote this must have been either extraordinary
geniuses, or very confused minds.
Or else they wanted to give a befriended unemployed lawyer some work.
But anyone writing such a paragraph deserves to be unemployed... ;)
How you're suppsed to construct a working & compliant 'processor' (I
assume this means compiler or interpreter or somesuch) after reading
this is a mystery to me.
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
