Re: No plans for C0x

>>> It's trivial to do that at step 2; you just have to first resolve the 
>>> standard's ambiguity in some consistent fashion.
>>
>> But the current issue concerned what the standard now
>> requires (in the way of diagnostics), not what some
>> modified version might require.  [...]
> 
> I wasn't talking about a modified version of the standard. Since the 
> standard leaves it implicitly unspecified, each implementation is free 
> to resolve that ambiguity in either of the two possible ways.


You know, the most useful thing I've got out of reading this newsgroup
is to understand what a *fundamentally bad idea* it is for nondeterminism
in technical standards to be implicit.

In C99, what I'm complaining about is the "or by the omission of any
explicit definition of behavior" part of clause 4 #2:

# 4. Conformance
#
# 2  If a "shall" or "shall not" requirement that appears outside of a
#    constraint is violated, the behavior is undefined. Undefined behavior
#    is otherwise indicated in this International Standard by the words
#    "undefined behavior" or by the omission of any explicit definition
#    of behavior. There is no difference in emphasis among these three;
#    they all describe "behavior that is undefined".

Bye
Thomas


--- GoldED/386 2.42.G0614+
 * Origin: Everything goes the bach runter ... 
 * http://thai-girls.org/cgi-php/DS/index.php
 * http://electronic-dreamland.com/cgi-bin/DS/index.php