Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 14:32:16 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> Cc: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>, wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: buildworld breakage during "make depend" at usr.bin/kdump Message-ID: <3BE1CD70.150B4B9D@mindspring.com> References: <200110312159.f9VLx1I45943@bunrab.catwhisker.org> <200111010549.fA15nPG47227@bunrab.catwhisker.org> <200111011614.fA1GE8P25519@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <200111011840.KAA23489@windsor.research.att.com> <200111011906.fA1J6gJ26843@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <200111011928.LAA24209@windsor.research.att.com> <3BE1BDC0.C61D0943@mindspring.com> <15329.48705.958888.501118@caddis.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Williams wrote: > > > > I guess I read "shall *permit* an application to..." as "it's not > > > non-conforming to", not as "it's required to". Standards-speak > > > is sometimes somewhat opaque =) > > > > The phrase "shall permit" means that a conforming implemention is > > required to permit. See RFC 2119. > > So, how does this differ from; > > "shall *require*" The RFC doesn't talk bout "permit" vs. "require". But going out on a limb, and taking them to be English (8-)), permit means that it is in the set of allowable practice, where require means that it is the only member of the set of allowable practice. I was more concerned with "shall"... -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3BE1CD70.150B4B9D>