Re: casting
- From: Richard Heathfield <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:19:35 +0000
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?
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: casting
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: casting
- From: jaysome
- Re: casting
- References:
- casting
- From: Christian Christmann
- Re: casting
- From: CBFalconer
- Re: casting
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: casting
- From: CBFalconer
- Re: casting
- From: jaysome
- casting
- Prev by Date: Re: Why the C committee doesn't provide an implementation when the standard is published?
- Next by Date: rand in a closed interval on the ints
- Previous by thread: Re: casting
- Next by thread: Re: casting
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|