RE: errata/462: A.1.1: "<file_path_spec" should be "file_path_spec"

From: Brad Pierce (Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com)
Date: Thu Sep 04 2003 - 09:30:00 PDT

  • Next message: Brad Pierce: "RE: errata/352: PROPOSAL - 10.2.2 implies task arguments can be left off"

    Precedence: bulk

    The following reply was made to PR errata/462; it has been noted by GNATS.

    From: "Brad Pierce" <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com>
    To: <etf-bugs@boyd.com>
    Cc:
    Subject: RE: errata/462: A.1.1: "<file_path_spec" should be "file_path_spec"
    Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 09:16:56 -0700

     According to the notes below Syntax 13-2, the file_path is a "file system-
     specific notation to specify an absolute or relative path ...".
     
     On the other hand, these notes and the examples assume a
     slash-style (.../...) hierarchy delimiter. And they seem to prescribe
     a variety of specific "shortcuts/wildcards".
     
     Also, the note in 13.7.1 uses a <> notation around library_name.
     Should these <> be removed, too?
     
     Maybe the <> in both cases are not bugs, but are metalanguage notation --
     like [] and {} -- used to indicate system-specific notation that is not
     (and should not be) specified by the LRM?
     
     -- Brad
     
     

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 04 2003 - 09:31:02 PDT and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.