This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: ChangeLog format (not really Re: S/390: Fix backtrace supportfor Java)
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- To: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, <java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <weigand at immd1 dot informatik dot uni-erlangen dot de>
- Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 08:51:39 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: ChangeLog format (not really Re: S/390: Fix backtrace supportfor Java)
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>
> > (And again, [] does *not* fit, because that notation is reserved
> > for the condition for #if/#ifdef:d code.)
>
> No it's not reserved. That was one of my points. Defining that for X []
> has to be used doesn't mean, that for Y it can't be used. It's not an
> exclusive definition in the standards.
Faulty logic. There's one notation X documented for purpose A.
There's another notation Y documented for purpose B. You imply
"hey, that document doesn't say *exclusive* so let's use
notation Y for purpose A!". Your use disagrees with the coding
standard documentation, because a change to a part would be
interpreted as a conditional change when interpreting that entry
using the documentation. But I've told you that before to no
avail, I think.
Look at it from the bright side: there's no need to inform *you*
again. :-)
brgds, H-P