Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #136201 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-04 09:21 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-10-04 11:20 -0700 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Section J.5.13 incomplete? jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2018-10-04 09:21 -0700
Re: Section J.5.13 incomplete? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-04 11:17 -0700
Re: Section J.5.13 incomplete? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-04 11:20 -0700
| From | jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 09:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Section J.5.13 incomplete? |
| Message-ID | <fd74f9c8-ebab-42b9-b6f8-f30cbcae851e@googlegroups.com> |
I noticed something while searching through the n1570.pdf for something else: > J.5.13 Floating-point status flags > 1 If any floating-point status flags are set on normal termination > after all calls to functions registered by the atexit function have > been made (see 7.22.4.4), the implementation writes some diagnostics > indicating the fact to the stderr stream, if it is still open, > > J.5.14 Extra arguments for signal handlers Either that final comma should have been a period, or there are some words missing after that comma. Was this fixed in the final standard? Since J.5 is a non-normative section describing common extensions to C, this is only a minor defect.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 11:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln8t3d4lwd.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #136201 |
jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu writes:
> I noticed something while searching through the n1570.pdf for something else:
>
>> J.5.13 Floating-point status flags
>> 1 If any floating-point status flags are set on normal termination
>> after all calls to functions registered by the atexit function have
>> been made (see 7.22.4.4), the implementation writes some diagnostics
>> indicating the fact to the stderr stream, if it is still open,
>>
>> J.5.14 Extra arguments for signal handlers
>
> Either that final comma should have been a period, or there are some
> words missing after that comma. Was this fixed in the final standard?
> Since J.5 is a non-normative section describing common extensions to C,
> this is only a minor defect.
The published C11 standard is the same.
IMHO that final comma should be a period.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 11:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln4le14lr7.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #136201 |
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu writes:
>>Either that final comma should have been a period, or there are some
>>words missing after that comma. Was this fixed in the final standard?
>
> I have looked into N2176, which is more recent than N1570,
I just downloaded N2176, and it's password protected.
> but this paragraph J.5.13 still ends with a comma therein.
> Another source, /older/ than N1570 shows the same comma.
>
> The web also has some sources, which then seem to have a
> period after the comma: »still open,.«.
>
> When an if clause /follows/ a main clause it is /not/ preceded
> by a comma. So, in English we write,
>
> |If it is still raining, I will go outside to dance in the rain.
>
> , but,
>
> |I will go outside to dance in the rain if it is still raining.
>
> , without a comma!
>
> So, in
>
> |indicating the fact to the stderr stream, if it is still open,
>
> , the first comma would be wrong if the if-clause should be
> intended to restrict the preceding clause. Or, when one assumes
> that the first comma is /not/ wrong, this would mean that the
> if-clause starts a new sentence (and is intended to restrict
> a following clause, which is missing). But then, it would be
> a "comma splice", where actually a /semicolon/ would be needed.
> So there already is something wrong with the first comma!
Perhaps, but I don't think it's a big deal. It could have been
written as:
If any floating-point status flags are set on normal termination
after all calls to functions registered by the atexit function have
been made (see 7.22.4.4), the implementation writes some diagnostics
indicating the fact to the stderr stream if it is still open.
but adding a comma between "stream" and "if" doesn't hurt anything IMHO,
and arguably makes it a bit easier to read.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web