Errors in status/explicit-failures-markup.xml?
Hi, I noticed that status/explicit-failures-markup.xml seems to contain some errors. I really wonder e.g. about "These compilers are unfortunately able to correctly compile". It looks like there is a "not" missing in this sentence (multiple times!). Jens
Jens Seidel wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that status/explicit-failures-markup.xml seems to contain some errors. I really wonder e.g. about "These compilers are unfortunately able to correctly compile". It looks like there is a "not" missing in this sentence (multiple times!).
Subversion "blame" pinpoints Jeff Garland as the guilty party:-) Jeff? --Beman
Beman Dawes wrote:
Jens Seidel wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that status/explicit-failures-markup.xml seems to contain some errors. I really wonder e.g. about "These compilers are unfortunately able to correctly compile". It looks like there is a "not" missing in this sentence (multiple times!).
Subversion "blame" pinpoints Jeff Garland as the guilty party:-)
Jeff?
I haven't modified the markup since it's been moved to subversion....so I'm going to proclaim innocence. Jeff
Jeff Garland wrote:
Beman Dawes wrote:
Jens Seidel wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that status/explicit-failures-markup.xml seems to contain some errors. I really wonder e.g. about "These compilers are unfortunately able to correctly compile". It looks like there is a "not" missing in this sentence (multiple times!). Subversion "blame" pinpoints Jeff Garland as the guilty party:-)
Jeff?
I haven't modified the markup since it's been moved to subversion....so I'm going to proclaim innocence.
This isn't a new problem. It has existed since rev 29888. The wording says:
These compilers are unfortunately able to correctly compile the new format-based input-output code for date time. Suitable, but less flexible, alternatives are available on these compilers.
What Jens is suggesting is that the comment (which is repeated multiple times) should read something like: These compilers are unfortunately *not* able to correctly compile the new format-based input-output code for date time. Suitable, but less flexible, alternatives are available on these compilers. --Beman
on Mon Jan 14 2008, Beman Dawes <bdawes-AT-acm.org> wrote:
Jeff Garland wrote:
Beman Dawes wrote:
Jens Seidel wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that status/explicit-failures-markup.xml seems to contain some errors. I really wonder e.g. about "These compilers are unfortunately able to correctly compile". It looks like there is a "not" missing in this sentence (multiple times!). Subversion "blame" pinpoints Jeff Garland as the guilty party:-)
Jeff?
I haven't modified the markup since it's been moved to subversion....so I'm going to proclaim innocence.
This isn't a new problem. It has existed since rev 29888. The wording says:
These compilers are unfortunately able to correctly compile the new format-based input-output code for date time. Suitable, but less flexible, alternatives are available on these compilers.
What Jens is suggesting is that the comment (which is repeated multiple times) should read something like:
These compilers are unfortunately *not* able to correctly compile the new format-based input-output code for date time. Suitable, but less flexible, alternatives are available on these compilers.
Jeff, have you dealt with this issue? If not, or Jeff doesn't respond, can someone open a ticket? Thanks, -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://boost-consulting.com
participants (4)
-
Beman Dawes -
David Abrahams -
Jeff Garland -
Jens Seidel