On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 01:53:50PM +0600, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> GCC will complain the absence of a statement after `out1:out2:`, but not
> two complains for `out1' and `out2', because they form a single entity.
I understand the formal specs (the email from Michael is very clear). What I'm
saying is that as the `dummy' statement is redoundant information but you're
requiring us to put it to build a labeled-statement, you could been even more
lazy and not define the labeled-statement as a statement so requiring us to put
a dummy statement after every label. That would been the same kind of issue
we're facing right now (but of course defining a labeled-statement as a
statement and allowing recursion makes the formal specs even simpler so that
probably wouldn't happen that easily).
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
