| Rick Smith 2007-08-29, 9:55 pm |
|
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5jmf1nFb2q4U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote in message
> news:13db2kuoft2919a@corp.supernews.com...
reference,[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
>
> I referred to it as: "That is simply an illegal (circular) indirect
> reference."
>
> However, whatever you call it has no bearing on what it does.
>
> The issue here is with functionality, not nomenclature.
>
>
>
> I can't believe this, Rick. I never said there were techniques for dealing
> with "indirect forward references"; on the contrary I suggested that such
> would be illegal due to circularity. As usual, you are much more
interested
> in having an argument, or parading your book learning, than solving a
> problem.
>
> Does the standard require that circular references be permitted or does it
> not?
>
> How would you address this?
>
> I already made my suggestion.
> So you won't be writing a 2002 compliant compiler any time soon, then?
>
>
> Well, that's your opinion and perfectly valid as such.
>
> Others may disagree.
>
> Pete.
> --
> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
>
>
It is not clear to me exactly how the total absence of
personal pronouns in my comments should be construed
as personal; however, let me clarify.
I took one paragraph completely out of context because
its words stimulated some thoughts. I then wrote and
posted those thoughts for interested readers to consider.
Nothing more than that was intended.
|