<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><div>On 2014–09–27, at 3:53 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis <<a href="mailto:gdr@microsoft.com">gdr@microsoft.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-family: 'Calisto MT', serif; color: rgb(112, 48, 160);">In addition to “conditionally supported”?</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Interesting. Conditional support applies to features, but I essentially suggested the same semantics for *mis*features. Casual readers would probably be better off with a separate term for it, if we do eventually go the route of “hard” static analysis.</div><div><br></div><div>In general, yeah, hard static analysis would turn into a portability mess; the status quo is better. Perhaps the real problem is giving users the ability to increase tolerance on (third-party) library headers while still applying strict rules to their own development.</div></div><div><br></div></body></html>