ChangeLog format (not really Re: S/390: Fix backtrace support for Java)
Fri Apr 4 13:51:00 GMT 2003
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*
More information about the Gcc-patches