Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Pre-main construction order in modules
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 23:10:40 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <20250401231040.00007eeb@yahoo.com>
References: <vsb12i$2mv42$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsbl21$1jsvi$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsbo2p$1p5ov$1@dont-email.me>
	<vse8sj$f9o2$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsfq2q$26s1t$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsh9av$362k4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2025 22:10:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2550e6d37672a3aa48cfb2f3f89cc262";
	logging-data="4093305"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/kml3M4RZFwWr7KAH7khsSlwH4fIEB4tU="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hPSmR1wMyUGEzIyr5KyB3jvkQLU=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.34; x86_64-w64-mingw32)

On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 13:55:43 -0400
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

> On 4/1/25 00:29, Jakob Bohm wrote:

> 
> > However treating the standard text as an imperfect description of 
> > traditional compiler techniques used for 2nd. Edition compilers
> > makes much more sense .  
> 
> No, that does not. The standard was never intended as a description of
> how compilers actually work, it was always intended to be a
> description of requirements on how they should work.


It sounds to me like a revisionisms.
Most language standards are intended to codify commonalities of work of
existing compilers. That applies to C++98 and mostly, although not
completely, to the following C++ standards. 
There exist exceptions, for example, Ada83. But they are exceptions.