Re: Pre-main construction order in modules

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.