Re: casting
- From: jaysome <jaysome@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 02:13:10 -0700
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:19:35 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
jaysome said:
<snip>
So what you're saying is that the consequences of "implementation
defined behaviour" could be the same as the consequences of "undefined
behaviour"?
If that were the case, and I'm not saying that it is or isn't,
shouldn't we expect some hard-core pedantics to start telling us that
use of "implementation defined behaviou" could lead to formatting of
our hard drives?
It *can*. And in some cases it does.
The difference is that, for implementation-defined behaviour, the
implementation is required to *document* this effect. If you want to format
your drive, such a feature can be extremely useful, n'est-ce-pas?
But it still leaves me uneasy about investing in
HowToEasilyFormatYourHardDrive.com. I've lost a lot of money on other
ventures, so maybe I'll take your advice on this one. Put me down for
$500.00.
--
jay
.
- References:
- casting
- From: Christian Christmann
- Re: casting
- From: CBFalconer
- Re: casting
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: casting
- From: CBFalconer
- Re: casting
- From: jaysome
- Re: casting
- From: Richard Heathfield
- casting
- Prev by Date: rand in a closed interval on the ints
- Next by Date: Re: Fixed-size FIFO queue
- Previous by thread: Re: casting
- Next by thread: Re: casting
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|