The context of this question is the Schengen Borders Code, but the question itself is about the underlying principle of interpretation, so reference to interpretations of other texts in judicial decisions or elsewhere is welcome.
The code's Article 11 establishes a requirement to stamp "travel documents" (for example, passports) of third-country nationals when the they cross the external Schengen border. There is a question over at Travel Stack Exchange that makes it clear that some Schengen countries do not stamp the documents of third-country nationals who have a residence permit from a Schengen country: Which Schengen countries don't stamp passports of ordinary residence permit holders?
The stamping requirement is stated thus:
The travel documents of third-country nationals shall be systematically stamped on entry and exit. In particular an entry or exit stamp shall be affixed to:
(a) the documents, bearing a valid visa, enabling third-country nationals to cross the border;
(b) the documents enabling third-country nationals to whom a visa is issued at the border by a Member State to cross the border;
(c) the documents enabling third-country nationals not subject to a visa requirement to cross the border.
(There are some additional provisions that do not apply to the hypothetical circumstances under discussion contained in 11(2) through 11(5). I would note that a "residence permit" is distinct for these purposes from the "residence card" provided for in the free movement directive 2004/38/EC.)
It is perhaps to be argued that "third-country nationals not subject to a visa requirement" includes residence permit holders who would need a visa if they didn't have a residence permit, but let us assume for the sake of argument that it does not. In that case, none of the examples enumerated in 11(1) covers those people. But none of the subsequent exceptions covers them either. It would seem therefore that the general requirement established in the first sentence of 11(1) should apply to them.
Some countries appear to have concluded the contrary: that because such people are not covered by the "in particular" list in 11(1), their passports do not need to be stamped. Is that reading defensible under established principles of statutory interpretation?