Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: Derek Jones Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Union C++ standard terminology Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 13:35:57 +0000 Organization: Compilers Central Lines: 47 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <21-12-001@comp.compilers> References: <21-11-004@comp.compilers> <21-11-008@comp.compilers> <21-11-009@comp.compilers> <21-11-010@comp.compilers> <21-11-011@comp.compilers> <21-11-013@comp.compilers> <21-11-015@comp.compilers> <21-11-016@comp.compilers> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="65296"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: C, standards Posted-Date: 05 Dec 2021 13:29:09 EST X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com In-Reply-To: <21-11-016@comp.compilers> Content-Language: en-US Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:2765 George, >> The Conformance section specifies how "shall" and "shall not" are to be >> interpreted. > > But it does NOT define "will" and "will not", and "must" and "must > not", and "does" and "does not" ... terms which are used liberally in > the documents, apparently without having any normative definition. The ISO directives say: 'Do not use "must" as an alternative for "shall".' https://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=ll&objId=4230456&objAction=browse&sort=subtype Although the IETF treats the terms similarly: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt My recollection is the the ISO directives used to strongly recommend against the use of any form of "must". The get out of jail answer is to point out that "ISO/IEC 2382−1:1993, Information technology — Vocabulary — Part 1: Fundamental terms" appears in the list of Normative references. Back when libraries used to contain paper documents, I spent an afternoon rummaging around the various parts of ISO 2382. I was surprised to find out how few terms are defined and how vague/general the definitions actually were. I have been in committee meetings were people said the term was defined in ISO 2382, we found out that it wasn't, then everybody switched to saying: "Ok, common usage English applies" (whatever that is; the "Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English" is great, but out of print, see the student edition). There is one occurrence of the word "must" in the standard, in an example. "does not" is common, mostly in examples and footnotes. The instances I have looked at look reasonable, e.g., "Each ? that does not begin one of the trigraphs..." The three instances of "will not" all appear in footnotes. > Not to mention that the Conformance section generally is not included > in draft documents. Nor are there easy to find, freely available, > references on how to read various standards documents. It appears in every copy of the draft standard I have seen.