Re: Line input and implementation-defined behaviour
From: Al Grant (algrant_at_myrealbox.com)
Date: 10/02/03
- Next message: Joona I Palaste: "Re: char *p = "longenough"; // Str255 spin off"
- Previous message: Joona I Palaste: "Re: Attn. C gurus"
- In reply to: lawrence.jones_at_eds.com: "Re: Line input and implementation-defined behaviour"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 2 Oct 2003 03:24:06 -0700
lawrence.jones@eds.com wrote in message news:<aqnr41-8j1.ln1@jones.homeip.net>...
> I wrote:
> >
> > In C89, it wasn't entirely clear whether
> > "implementation-defined behavior" allowed that or not
>
> In comp.std.c Al Grant <algrant@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >
> > It was entirely clear that it did.
>
> In comp.std.c Dan Pop <Dan.Pop@cern.ch> wrote:
> >
> > The C89 text is perfectly clear:
> [...]
> > So, it is only *the result* that is implementation-defined, not any other
> > aspect of the program's behaviour.
>
> Thank you for proving my point, gentlemen.
You have ignored the rest of my post:
It was also entirely clear that 3.2.1.2 did not use the phrase
"implementation-defined behavior". What it said was "if the
value cannot be represented the result is implementation-defined".
As far as I can tell Dan Pop and I have both read the standard
in the same way. You appear not to have read it at all in that
you are asking about the interpretation of a phrase that doesn't
even occur in the part of the standard under discussion.
- Next message: Joona I Palaste: "Re: char *p = "longenough"; // Str255 spin off"
- Previous message: Joona I Palaste: "Re: Attn. C gurus"
- In reply to: lawrence.jones_at_eds.com: "Re: Line input and implementation-defined behaviour"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
