Re: casting
- From: Richard Heathfield <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 14:42:05 +0000
Keith Thompson said:
Richard Heathfield <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
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?
The other difference is that, in the case of implementation-defined
behavior, the standard provides two or more possibilities and the
implementation has to pick one of them. (Unspecified behavior is the
same, except that the implementation needn't document its choice.)
Well, yes, you're right - but because you're right, it is clear that the C99
Standard is broken (again). I'm thinking of alternative forms of main()
other than the two defined by the Standard. The Standard says that main()
may be defined "in some other implementation-defined manner" but, as far as
I can tell, no alternative possibilities are described. So the implementor
who wishes to provide an alternative main() interface has zero alternatives
from which to choose.
--
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: 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
- Re: casting
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: casting
- From: Keith Thompson
- casting
- Prev by Date: Re: Why the C committee doesn't provide an implementation when the standard is published?
- Next by Date: Re: Example for an dynamically allocated associative array in C
- Previous by thread: Re: casting
- Next by thread: Re: casting
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|