[Cfp-interest] version of syntax discussion for stds-754

[Jim Thomas]

I don’t any problem. The document looks good to go.
-Jim

On Jun 13, 2014, at 2:12 PM, David Hough CFP <pcfp at oakapple.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> I would like to distribute a version of the syntax discussion to the
> IEEE 754 list if nobody sees a problem.
> 
> The difference is that there are no organizational references or
> explicit requests for response.
> 
> So the version proposed for stds-754 is at
> http://www.validlab.com/cfp/syntax-list.txt
> and the diffs  are:
> 
> 
> 
> 38c38
> < .ts "Notes on Alternate Exception Handling Syntax for C"  "14/06/13" "syntax-list.ms 1.1"
> ---
>> .ts "Alternate Exception Handling Syntax for C: Notes for TS 18661 Part 5 Supplementary attributes"  "%E%" "%M% %I%"
> 60,62d59
> < What follows is
> < some background, necessary semantics, and discussion of two
> < syntactic approaches: try/catch and #pragma.
> 63a61,67
>> .p
>> The C Floating Point group working of TS 18661 has developed two
>> principal approaches and seeks advice from the C committee as
>> to which of these two, or some other,
>> would be more productive to develop in detail.   What follows is
>> the background, necessary semantics, and discussion of try/catch
>> and #pragma approaches.
> 65a70
>> 
> 334c339,343
> < that are already in C.
> ---
>> that are already in C,
>> and are already in
>> previous floating-point extension reports going through the approval
>> process, and that are being considered to control other aspects
>> of floating-point code generation.
> 336a346,371
>> Other syntaxes that have been used in the past include:
>> 
>> .nf
>> PL/I:
>> ON exception BEGIN; ... END;
>> 
>> Basic:
>> ON ERROR GOTO label
>> ON event GOSUB label
>> 
>> Rexx:
>> SIGNAL ON exception;
>> .fi
>> 
>> but these don't seem to offer any advantage.
>> 
>> .p
>> While the C Floating Point group working of TS 18661 could pursue any of
>> these directions and report the results to the C committee,
>> we'd appreciate early feedback and direction from the C committee
>> as to which seems the most acceptable, or whether there's some better
>> C-like way to express the semantics.    The semantic content is pretty
>> much the same with all, but the syntax possibilities vary widely.
>> 
>> 
>> .p
> _______________________________________________
> Cfp-interest mailing list
> Cfp-interest at oakapple.net
> http://mailman.oakapple.net/mailman/listinfo/cfp-interest