The code below, is it ill-formed NDR or is it well formed? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experience The Ask Question Wizard is Live!Where in C++14 Standard does it say that a non-constexpr function cannot be used in a definition of a constexpr function?Inheriting constructorsWhy does an overridden function in the derived class hide other overloads of the base class?x[0] == 1 constant expression in C++11 when x is const int[]?constexpr bug in clang but not in gcc?Rationale for [dcl.constexpr]p5 in the c++ standardWhy can't lambda, when cast to function pointer, be used in constexpr context?Ill-Formed, No Diagnostic Required (NDR): ConstExpr Function Throw in C++14constexpr reference to non-const objectWhy is this constexpr function ill-formed?Constexpr constructor fails to satisfy the requirements, but still constexpr. Why?

Can a new player join a group only when a new campaign starts?

How does the math work when buying airline miles?

How were pictures turned from film to a big picture in a picture frame before digital scanning?

Generate an RGB colour grid

Drawing without replacement: why is the order of draw irrelevant?

Did Krishna say in Bhagavad Gita "I am in every living being"

Converted a Scalar function to a TVF function for parallel execution-Still running in Serial mode

How to install press fit bottom bracket into new frame

What is the difference between globalisation and imperialism?

Why is my ESD wriststrap failing with nitrile gloves on?

Most bit efficient text communication method?

An adverb for when you're not exaggerating

Crossing US/Canada Border for less than 24 hours

Why wasn't DOSKEY integrated with COMMAND.COM?

Why do we bend a book to keep it straight?

If Windows 7 doesn't support WSL, then what does Linux subsystem option mean?

How could we fake a moon landing now?

Do wooden building fires get hotter than 600°C?

Why is it faster to reheat something than it is to cook it?

Performance gap between vector<bool> and array

How to react to hostile behavior from a senior developer?

As a beginner, should I get a Squier Strat with a SSS config or a HSS?

Trademark violation for app?

Central Vacuuming: Is it worth it, and how does it compare to normal vacuuming?



The code below, is it ill-formed NDR or is it well formed?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experience
The Ask Question Wizard is Live!Where in C++14 Standard does it say that a non-constexpr function cannot be used in a definition of a constexpr function?Inheriting constructorsWhy does an overridden function in the derived class hide other overloads of the base class?x[0] == 1 constant expression in C++11 when x is const int[]?constexpr bug in clang but not in gcc?Rationale for [dcl.constexpr]p5 in the c++ standardWhy can't lambda, when cast to function pointer, be used in constexpr context?Ill-Formed, No Diagnostic Required (NDR): ConstExpr Function Throw in C++14constexpr reference to non-const objectWhy is this constexpr function ill-formed?Constexpr constructor fails to satisfy the requirements, but still constexpr. Why?



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;








16















Clang accepts the following code, but gcc rejects it.



void h() 

constexpr int f()
return 1;
h();


int main()
constexpr int i = f();



Here is the error message:



g++ -std=c++17 -O2 -Wall -pedantic -pthread main.cpp && ./a.out
main.cpp: In function 'constexpr int f()':
main.cpp:5:6: error: call to non-'constexpr' function 'void h()'
h();
~^~
main.cpp: In function 'int main()':
main.cpp:9:24: error: 'constexpr int f()' called in a constant expression
constexpr int i = f();
~^~
main.cpp:9:19: warning: unused variable 'i' [-Wunused-variable]
constexpr int i = f();


This could well be the case where both compilers are correct, once we consider [dcl.constexpr]/5, given that f() is not a constant expression, as it doesn't satisfy [expr.const]/(4.2), as it calls a non-constexpr function h. That is, the code is ill-formed, but no diagnostic is required.



One other possibility is that the code is well formed, as [expr.const]/(4.2) doesn't apply in this case because the call to h in f is not evaluated. If this is the case, gcc is wrong and clang is correct.










share|improve this question



















  • 4





    Clang does not allow calling h() before returning, so the real question here is: Is a compiler allowed to ignore dead ill-formed code?

    – idmean
    4 hours ago











  • "as it calls a non-constexpr function h". But it doesn't actually call h. I'd say that gcc is wrong here.

    – geza
    4 hours ago











  • I'm adding the C++14 tag since on C++11 there's no question that it's ill-formed.

    – Barry
    4 hours ago











  • This code works in GCC's trunk.. godbolt.org/z/f04MCq and godbolt.org/z/bAyE8a .. So it's already fixed.. Free upvotes. If compiled with GCC 8.3 it will fail but compile with Trunk and it works fine.

    – Brandon
    4 hours ago


















16















Clang accepts the following code, but gcc rejects it.



void h() 

constexpr int f()
return 1;
h();


int main()
constexpr int i = f();



Here is the error message:



g++ -std=c++17 -O2 -Wall -pedantic -pthread main.cpp && ./a.out
main.cpp: In function 'constexpr int f()':
main.cpp:5:6: error: call to non-'constexpr' function 'void h()'
h();
~^~
main.cpp: In function 'int main()':
main.cpp:9:24: error: 'constexpr int f()' called in a constant expression
constexpr int i = f();
~^~
main.cpp:9:19: warning: unused variable 'i' [-Wunused-variable]
constexpr int i = f();


This could well be the case where both compilers are correct, once we consider [dcl.constexpr]/5, given that f() is not a constant expression, as it doesn't satisfy [expr.const]/(4.2), as it calls a non-constexpr function h. That is, the code is ill-formed, but no diagnostic is required.



One other possibility is that the code is well formed, as [expr.const]/(4.2) doesn't apply in this case because the call to h in f is not evaluated. If this is the case, gcc is wrong and clang is correct.










share|improve this question



















  • 4





    Clang does not allow calling h() before returning, so the real question here is: Is a compiler allowed to ignore dead ill-formed code?

    – idmean
    4 hours ago











  • "as it calls a non-constexpr function h". But it doesn't actually call h. I'd say that gcc is wrong here.

    – geza
    4 hours ago











  • I'm adding the C++14 tag since on C++11 there's no question that it's ill-formed.

    – Barry
    4 hours ago











  • This code works in GCC's trunk.. godbolt.org/z/f04MCq and godbolt.org/z/bAyE8a .. So it's already fixed.. Free upvotes. If compiled with GCC 8.3 it will fail but compile with Trunk and it works fine.

    – Brandon
    4 hours ago














16












16








16


1






Clang accepts the following code, but gcc rejects it.



void h() 

constexpr int f()
return 1;
h();


int main()
constexpr int i = f();



Here is the error message:



g++ -std=c++17 -O2 -Wall -pedantic -pthread main.cpp && ./a.out
main.cpp: In function 'constexpr int f()':
main.cpp:5:6: error: call to non-'constexpr' function 'void h()'
h();
~^~
main.cpp: In function 'int main()':
main.cpp:9:24: error: 'constexpr int f()' called in a constant expression
constexpr int i = f();
~^~
main.cpp:9:19: warning: unused variable 'i' [-Wunused-variable]
constexpr int i = f();


This could well be the case where both compilers are correct, once we consider [dcl.constexpr]/5, given that f() is not a constant expression, as it doesn't satisfy [expr.const]/(4.2), as it calls a non-constexpr function h. That is, the code is ill-formed, but no diagnostic is required.



One other possibility is that the code is well formed, as [expr.const]/(4.2) doesn't apply in this case because the call to h in f is not evaluated. If this is the case, gcc is wrong and clang is correct.










share|improve this question
















Clang accepts the following code, but gcc rejects it.



void h() 

constexpr int f()
return 1;
h();


int main()
constexpr int i = f();



Here is the error message:



g++ -std=c++17 -O2 -Wall -pedantic -pthread main.cpp && ./a.out
main.cpp: In function 'constexpr int f()':
main.cpp:5:6: error: call to non-'constexpr' function 'void h()'
h();
~^~
main.cpp: In function 'int main()':
main.cpp:9:24: error: 'constexpr int f()' called in a constant expression
constexpr int i = f();
~^~
main.cpp:9:19: warning: unused variable 'i' [-Wunused-variable]
constexpr int i = f();


This could well be the case where both compilers are correct, once we consider [dcl.constexpr]/5, given that f() is not a constant expression, as it doesn't satisfy [expr.const]/(4.2), as it calls a non-constexpr function h. That is, the code is ill-formed, but no diagnostic is required.



One other possibility is that the code is well formed, as [expr.const]/(4.2) doesn't apply in this case because the call to h in f is not evaluated. If this is the case, gcc is wrong and clang is correct.







c++ language-lawyer c++17 constexpr






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago









Barry

187k21331612




187k21331612










asked 4 hours ago









AlexanderAlexander

910414




910414







  • 4





    Clang does not allow calling h() before returning, so the real question here is: Is a compiler allowed to ignore dead ill-formed code?

    – idmean
    4 hours ago











  • "as it calls a non-constexpr function h". But it doesn't actually call h. I'd say that gcc is wrong here.

    – geza
    4 hours ago











  • I'm adding the C++14 tag since on C++11 there's no question that it's ill-formed.

    – Barry
    4 hours ago











  • This code works in GCC's trunk.. godbolt.org/z/f04MCq and godbolt.org/z/bAyE8a .. So it's already fixed.. Free upvotes. If compiled with GCC 8.3 it will fail but compile with Trunk and it works fine.

    – Brandon
    4 hours ago













  • 4





    Clang does not allow calling h() before returning, so the real question here is: Is a compiler allowed to ignore dead ill-formed code?

    – idmean
    4 hours ago











  • "as it calls a non-constexpr function h". But it doesn't actually call h. I'd say that gcc is wrong here.

    – geza
    4 hours ago











  • I'm adding the C++14 tag since on C++11 there's no question that it's ill-formed.

    – Barry
    4 hours ago











  • This code works in GCC's trunk.. godbolt.org/z/f04MCq and godbolt.org/z/bAyE8a .. So it's already fixed.. Free upvotes. If compiled with GCC 8.3 it will fail but compile with Trunk and it works fine.

    – Brandon
    4 hours ago








4




4





Clang does not allow calling h() before returning, so the real question here is: Is a compiler allowed to ignore dead ill-formed code?

– idmean
4 hours ago





Clang does not allow calling h() before returning, so the real question here is: Is a compiler allowed to ignore dead ill-formed code?

– idmean
4 hours ago













"as it calls a non-constexpr function h". But it doesn't actually call h. I'd say that gcc is wrong here.

– geza
4 hours ago





"as it calls a non-constexpr function h". But it doesn't actually call h. I'd say that gcc is wrong here.

– geza
4 hours ago













I'm adding the C++14 tag since on C++11 there's no question that it's ill-formed.

– Barry
4 hours ago





I'm adding the C++14 tag since on C++11 there's no question that it's ill-formed.

– Barry
4 hours ago













This code works in GCC's trunk.. godbolt.org/z/f04MCq and godbolt.org/z/bAyE8a .. So it's already fixed.. Free upvotes. If compiled with GCC 8.3 it will fail but compile with Trunk and it works fine.

– Brandon
4 hours ago






This code works in GCC's trunk.. godbolt.org/z/f04MCq and godbolt.org/z/bAyE8a .. So it's already fixed.. Free upvotes. If compiled with GCC 8.3 it will fail but compile with Trunk and it works fine.

– Brandon
4 hours ago













1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















15














Clang is correct. A call to f() is a constant expression since the call to h() is never evaluated, so [dcl.constexpr]/5 doesn't apply. The call to h() in the body of f() is not ill-formed because the constraints on constexpr functions don't say anything about not being allowed to call non-constexpr functions. Indeed, a function like the following is well-formed because a call to it can be a constant expression when x is odd:



constexpr int g(int x) 
if (x%2 == 0) h();
return 0;






share|improve this answer























  • You answer seems to be correct, but I don't agree with your reasoning. Consider this: constexpr int f() h(); return 1; . In this case the code is ill-formed NDR according to [dcl.constexpr]/5 because the function f invokes a non-constexpr function h, and this is not allowed according to [expr.const]/(4.2). See also this question in SO.

    – Alexander
    3 hours ago












  • @Alexander In the case where the call to h() is before the return statement, every call to f will fail to be a constant expression, and [dcl.constexpr]/5 applies. In the case where the call to h() is after the return statement, every call to f will be a constant expression, so [dcl.constexpr]/5 does not apply.

    – Brian
    3 hours ago











  • Ok, but why did you say "The call to h() in the body of f() is not ill-formed because the constraints on constexpr functions don't say anything about not being allowed to call non-constexpr functions."? This is what is confusing in your answer.

    – Alexander
    2 hours ago







  • 1





    @Alexander I'm not sure what part of that was unclear. I linked a section of the standard that lists the constructs that are forbidden from appearing in a constexpr function's body. A call to a non-constexpr function is not one of the forbidden constructs. However, if the call to the non-constexpr function becomes inevitable (i.e., occurs along all paths) then [dcl.constexpr]/5 becomes violated.

    – Brian
    2 hours ago












Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55752281%2fthe-code-below-is-it-ill-formed-ndr-or-is-it-well-formed%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









15














Clang is correct. A call to f() is a constant expression since the call to h() is never evaluated, so [dcl.constexpr]/5 doesn't apply. The call to h() in the body of f() is not ill-formed because the constraints on constexpr functions don't say anything about not being allowed to call non-constexpr functions. Indeed, a function like the following is well-formed because a call to it can be a constant expression when x is odd:



constexpr int g(int x) 
if (x%2 == 0) h();
return 0;






share|improve this answer























  • You answer seems to be correct, but I don't agree with your reasoning. Consider this: constexpr int f() h(); return 1; . In this case the code is ill-formed NDR according to [dcl.constexpr]/5 because the function f invokes a non-constexpr function h, and this is not allowed according to [expr.const]/(4.2). See also this question in SO.

    – Alexander
    3 hours ago












  • @Alexander In the case where the call to h() is before the return statement, every call to f will fail to be a constant expression, and [dcl.constexpr]/5 applies. In the case where the call to h() is after the return statement, every call to f will be a constant expression, so [dcl.constexpr]/5 does not apply.

    – Brian
    3 hours ago











  • Ok, but why did you say "The call to h() in the body of f() is not ill-formed because the constraints on constexpr functions don't say anything about not being allowed to call non-constexpr functions."? This is what is confusing in your answer.

    – Alexander
    2 hours ago







  • 1





    @Alexander I'm not sure what part of that was unclear. I linked a section of the standard that lists the constructs that are forbidden from appearing in a constexpr function's body. A call to a non-constexpr function is not one of the forbidden constructs. However, if the call to the non-constexpr function becomes inevitable (i.e., occurs along all paths) then [dcl.constexpr]/5 becomes violated.

    – Brian
    2 hours ago
















15














Clang is correct. A call to f() is a constant expression since the call to h() is never evaluated, so [dcl.constexpr]/5 doesn't apply. The call to h() in the body of f() is not ill-formed because the constraints on constexpr functions don't say anything about not being allowed to call non-constexpr functions. Indeed, a function like the following is well-formed because a call to it can be a constant expression when x is odd:



constexpr int g(int x) 
if (x%2 == 0) h();
return 0;






share|improve this answer























  • You answer seems to be correct, but I don't agree with your reasoning. Consider this: constexpr int f() h(); return 1; . In this case the code is ill-formed NDR according to [dcl.constexpr]/5 because the function f invokes a non-constexpr function h, and this is not allowed according to [expr.const]/(4.2). See also this question in SO.

    – Alexander
    3 hours ago












  • @Alexander In the case where the call to h() is before the return statement, every call to f will fail to be a constant expression, and [dcl.constexpr]/5 applies. In the case where the call to h() is after the return statement, every call to f will be a constant expression, so [dcl.constexpr]/5 does not apply.

    – Brian
    3 hours ago











  • Ok, but why did you say "The call to h() in the body of f() is not ill-formed because the constraints on constexpr functions don't say anything about not being allowed to call non-constexpr functions."? This is what is confusing in your answer.

    – Alexander
    2 hours ago







  • 1





    @Alexander I'm not sure what part of that was unclear. I linked a section of the standard that lists the constructs that are forbidden from appearing in a constexpr function's body. A call to a non-constexpr function is not one of the forbidden constructs. However, if the call to the non-constexpr function becomes inevitable (i.e., occurs along all paths) then [dcl.constexpr]/5 becomes violated.

    – Brian
    2 hours ago














15












15








15







Clang is correct. A call to f() is a constant expression since the call to h() is never evaluated, so [dcl.constexpr]/5 doesn't apply. The call to h() in the body of f() is not ill-formed because the constraints on constexpr functions don't say anything about not being allowed to call non-constexpr functions. Indeed, a function like the following is well-formed because a call to it can be a constant expression when x is odd:



constexpr int g(int x) 
if (x%2 == 0) h();
return 0;






share|improve this answer













Clang is correct. A call to f() is a constant expression since the call to h() is never evaluated, so [dcl.constexpr]/5 doesn't apply. The call to h() in the body of f() is not ill-formed because the constraints on constexpr functions don't say anything about not being allowed to call non-constexpr functions. Indeed, a function like the following is well-formed because a call to it can be a constant expression when x is odd:



constexpr int g(int x) 
if (x%2 == 0) h();
return 0;







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 4 hours ago









BrianBrian

67k799192




67k799192












  • You answer seems to be correct, but I don't agree with your reasoning. Consider this: constexpr int f() h(); return 1; . In this case the code is ill-formed NDR according to [dcl.constexpr]/5 because the function f invokes a non-constexpr function h, and this is not allowed according to [expr.const]/(4.2). See also this question in SO.

    – Alexander
    3 hours ago












  • @Alexander In the case where the call to h() is before the return statement, every call to f will fail to be a constant expression, and [dcl.constexpr]/5 applies. In the case where the call to h() is after the return statement, every call to f will be a constant expression, so [dcl.constexpr]/5 does not apply.

    – Brian
    3 hours ago











  • Ok, but why did you say "The call to h() in the body of f() is not ill-formed because the constraints on constexpr functions don't say anything about not being allowed to call non-constexpr functions."? This is what is confusing in your answer.

    – Alexander
    2 hours ago







  • 1





    @Alexander I'm not sure what part of that was unclear. I linked a section of the standard that lists the constructs that are forbidden from appearing in a constexpr function's body. A call to a non-constexpr function is not one of the forbidden constructs. However, if the call to the non-constexpr function becomes inevitable (i.e., occurs along all paths) then [dcl.constexpr]/5 becomes violated.

    – Brian
    2 hours ago


















  • You answer seems to be correct, but I don't agree with your reasoning. Consider this: constexpr int f() h(); return 1; . In this case the code is ill-formed NDR according to [dcl.constexpr]/5 because the function f invokes a non-constexpr function h, and this is not allowed according to [expr.const]/(4.2). See also this question in SO.

    – Alexander
    3 hours ago












  • @Alexander In the case where the call to h() is before the return statement, every call to f will fail to be a constant expression, and [dcl.constexpr]/5 applies. In the case where the call to h() is after the return statement, every call to f will be a constant expression, so [dcl.constexpr]/5 does not apply.

    – Brian
    3 hours ago











  • Ok, but why did you say "The call to h() in the body of f() is not ill-formed because the constraints on constexpr functions don't say anything about not being allowed to call non-constexpr functions."? This is what is confusing in your answer.

    – Alexander
    2 hours ago







  • 1





    @Alexander I'm not sure what part of that was unclear. I linked a section of the standard that lists the constructs that are forbidden from appearing in a constexpr function's body. A call to a non-constexpr function is not one of the forbidden constructs. However, if the call to the non-constexpr function becomes inevitable (i.e., occurs along all paths) then [dcl.constexpr]/5 becomes violated.

    – Brian
    2 hours ago

















You answer seems to be correct, but I don't agree with your reasoning. Consider this: constexpr int f() h(); return 1; . In this case the code is ill-formed NDR according to [dcl.constexpr]/5 because the function f invokes a non-constexpr function h, and this is not allowed according to [expr.const]/(4.2). See also this question in SO.

– Alexander
3 hours ago






You answer seems to be correct, but I don't agree with your reasoning. Consider this: constexpr int f() h(); return 1; . In this case the code is ill-formed NDR according to [dcl.constexpr]/5 because the function f invokes a non-constexpr function h, and this is not allowed according to [expr.const]/(4.2). See also this question in SO.

– Alexander
3 hours ago














@Alexander In the case where the call to h() is before the return statement, every call to f will fail to be a constant expression, and [dcl.constexpr]/5 applies. In the case where the call to h() is after the return statement, every call to f will be a constant expression, so [dcl.constexpr]/5 does not apply.

– Brian
3 hours ago





@Alexander In the case where the call to h() is before the return statement, every call to f will fail to be a constant expression, and [dcl.constexpr]/5 applies. In the case where the call to h() is after the return statement, every call to f will be a constant expression, so [dcl.constexpr]/5 does not apply.

– Brian
3 hours ago













Ok, but why did you say "The call to h() in the body of f() is not ill-formed because the constraints on constexpr functions don't say anything about not being allowed to call non-constexpr functions."? This is what is confusing in your answer.

– Alexander
2 hours ago






Ok, but why did you say "The call to h() in the body of f() is not ill-formed because the constraints on constexpr functions don't say anything about not being allowed to call non-constexpr functions."? This is what is confusing in your answer.

– Alexander
2 hours ago





1




1





@Alexander I'm not sure what part of that was unclear. I linked a section of the standard that lists the constructs that are forbidden from appearing in a constexpr function's body. A call to a non-constexpr function is not one of the forbidden constructs. However, if the call to the non-constexpr function becomes inevitable (i.e., occurs along all paths) then [dcl.constexpr]/5 becomes violated.

– Brian
2 hours ago






@Alexander I'm not sure what part of that was unclear. I linked a section of the standard that lists the constructs that are forbidden from appearing in a constexpr function's body. A call to a non-constexpr function is not one of the forbidden constructs. However, if the call to the non-constexpr function becomes inevitable (i.e., occurs along all paths) then [dcl.constexpr]/5 becomes violated.

– Brian
2 hours ago




















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55752281%2fthe-code-below-is-it-ill-formed-ndr-or-is-it-well-formed%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

How to create a command for the “strange m” symbol in latex? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)How do you make your own symbol when Detexify fails?Writing bold small caps with mathpazo packageplus-minus symbol with parenthesis around the minus signGreek character in Beamer document titleHow to create dashed right arrow over symbol?Currency symbol: Turkish LiraDouble prec as a single symbol?Plus Sign Too Big; How to Call adfbullet?Is there a TeX macro for three-legged pi?How do I get my integral-like symbol to align like the integral?How to selectively substitute a letter with another symbol representing the same letterHow do I generate a less than symbol and vertical bar that are the same height?

Българска екзархия Съдържание История | Български екзарси | Вижте също | Външни препратки | Литература | Бележки | НавигацияУстав за управлението на българската екзархия. Цариград, 1870Слово на Ловешкия митрополит Иларион при откриването на Българския народен събор в Цариград на 23. II. 1870 г.Българската правда и гръцката кривда. От С. М. (= Софийски Мелетий). Цариград, 1872Предстоятели на Българската екзархияПодмененият ВеликденИнформационна агенция „Фокус“Димитър Ризов. Българите в техните исторически, етнографически и политически граници (Атлас съдържащ 40 карти). Berlin, Königliche Hoflithographie, Hof-Buch- und -Steindruckerei Wilhelm Greve, 1917Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars

Чепеларе Съдържание География | История | Население | Спортни и природни забележителности | Културни и исторически обекти | Религии | Обществени институции | Известни личности | Редовни събития | Галерия | Източници | Литература | Външни препратки | Навигация41°43′23.99″ с. ш. 24°41′09.99″ и. д. / 41.723333° с. ш. 24.686111° и. д.*ЧепелареЧепеларски Linux fest 2002Начало на Зимен сезон 2005/06Национални хайдушки празници „Капитан Петко Войвода“Град ЧепелареЧепеларе – народният ски курортbgrod.orgwww.terranatura.hit.bgСправка за населението на гр. Исперих, общ. Исперих, обл. РазградМузей на родопския карстМузей на спорта и скитеЧепеларебългарскибългарскианглийскитукИстория на градаСки писти в ЧепелареВремето в ЧепелареРадио и телевизия в ЧепелареЧепеларе мами с родопски чар и добри пистиЕвтин туризъм и снежни атракции в ЧепелареМестоположениеИнформация и снимки от музея на родопския карст3D панорами от ЧепелареЧепелареррр