Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Michael Wojcik, post: 2447059"] No, my premise is that you explicitly claimed that you had not checked the Standard in this particular instance, and I can't see any justification for your conclusion above. My argument appears to apply regardless of whether I agreed with you. I certainly do not believe that any reading of the Standard justifies "the above paragraph", assuming the antecedent is my first paragraph (and I don't see what else it could reasonably be). The Standard says nothing about whether you should reply to a Usenet query, or whether Jordan's question referred to the Standard, which are the only two claims in the paragraph in question. Yes, that's the idea. Since Jordan's question did not refer to those restricted circum- stances, it applies to the general case; and in the general case, his proposition ("this action is permitted by the Standard") is false. "p -> q" does not imply "q". Had Jordan asked, in some appropriate venue, "is it legal to stick a knife into someone?", would you consider, "yes, if you're a surgeon performing within the terms of your medical license and other applicable regulation", and from that conclude that the answer to his question is "yes"? If so, I suggest you reconsider your personal definition of "legal", as it does not appear to accord with common usage. Actually, this is more plausible than I originally thought. I was thinking that the Standard allows standard headers to include other standard headers, but it does not (there was a thread about this on comp.std.c back in 2001[1]). The C++ standard does allow this, which may have been what I was thinking of. However, the point is moot; as I noted above, Jordan's question does not specify any special circumstances, and neither does your initial reply. As written they are false. (Well, technically yours isn't necessarily false, since it's a claim of belief; but your belief, as stated, does not accord with fact.) I submit that it does - that as the question is expressed, there is no partial correctness that can attach. It is incorrect as stated. I don't believe I was self-righteous in the least. My claim about the unlikelihood of the special circumstances was overly strong (due to an erroneous unstated understanding which I ought to have verified first), but aside from that I stand by everything I wrote. None of it is intended to glorify me; I merely report what the Standard says, and question - I think correctly - the utility of a response to a question about the Standard which fails to refer to the Standard. (That it did so ostentatiously might, by some, seem a bit self- indulgent, but I will pass over that in silence.) 1. [URL]http://groups.google.com/group/comp.std.c/browse_thread/thread/d788da4142801822/f87020e3ea6fda78[/URL] -- Michael Wojcik [email]michael.wojcik@microfocus.com[/email] Advertising Copy in a Second Language Dept.: The precious ovum itself is proof of the oath sworn to those who set eyes upon Mokona: Your wishes will be granted if you are able to invest it with eternal radiance... -- Noriyuki Zinguzi [/QUOTE]

Verification