[iaufwg] Final wording of 64-bit image support

[Clive Page]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Lucio Chiappetti wrote:

> I can just repeat what I proposed in my e-mail of 12 December 2005, i.e.
> that one should/could add somewhere a "discouragement" statement.

I really don't think that this has any place in a standards document. 
There can be a case for marking certain features as 'deprecated' or 
'obsolescent' if newer ways of achieving the same objective are better. 
For example the Fortran Standard lists things like the arithmetic-IF as 
obsolescent while leaving it in the standard for compatibility, for 
reasons we can all appreciate.

The wording you propose risks being ignored as it is rather length, but if 
programmers do read it, they may well dislike being talked-down to:
For example:

>   Other data types are discouraged
>   unless there are valid reasons to use them.

Does any progammer ever use data types unless he/she feels that there are 
valid reasons for using them?  If they do, then I don't think that such a 
sentence buried in the Standard will stop them.  One can also argue that 
when the Standard includes such types then general purpose readers will 
*have* to support them, and then there is no point in trying to reduce the 
incidence of their usage to cases where they are "necessary".

So, sorry, but I disagree.

-- 
Clive Page
Dept of Physics & Astronomy,
University of Leicester,    Tel +44 116 252 3551
Leicester, LE1 7RH,  U.K.   Fax +44 116 252 3311