Re: Still more about behaviour

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by lawrence.jones@eds.com, Aug 22, 2003.

  1. Guest

    Joona I Palaste <> wrote:
    >
    > Does defined behaviour ALLOW the implementation to do anything that
    > implementation-defined behaviour would not?
    > Does implementation-defined behaviour ALLOW the implementation to do
    > anything that unspecified behaviour would not?
    > Does unspecified behaviour ALLOW the implementation to do anything that
    > undefined behaviour would not?


    No.

    -Larry Jones

    I don't like these stories with morals. -- Calvin
     
    , Aug 22, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. scribbled the following:
    > Joona I Palaste <> wrote:
    >> Does defined behaviour ALLOW the implementation to do anything that
    >> implementation-defined behaviour would not?
    >> Does implementation-defined behaviour ALLOW the implementation to do
    >> anything that unspecified behaviour would not?
    >> Does unspecified behaviour ALLOW the implementation to do anything that
    >> undefined behaviour would not?


    > No.


    Larry Jones, aren't you a member of the C standard committee? In that
    case, this answer pretty much confirms my theory about a strict order
    of freedom allowed.

    --
    /-- Joona Palaste () ---------------------------\
    | Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
    | http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
    \----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
    "That's no raisin - it's an ALIEN!"
    - Tourist in MTV's Oddities
     
    Joona I Palaste, Aug 23, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    Joona I Palaste <> wrote:
    >
    > Larry Jones, aren't you a member of the C standard committee?


    Yes, and Project Editor for the standard.

    > In that
    > case, this answer pretty much confirms my theory about a strict order
    > of freedom allowed.


    Well, like Zaphod Beeblebrox, I'm just a guy, you know? But it
    was certainly our intent that the various behaviors allow a
    monotonically increasing amount of freedom.

    -Larry Jones

    When you're SERIOUS about having fun, it's not much fun at all! -- Calvin
     
    , Aug 23, 2003
    #3
  4. Jun Woong Guest

    "Joona I Palaste" <> wrote in message news:bi79ur$hbg$...
    > scribbled the following:
    > > Joona I Palaste <> wrote:
    > >> Does defined behaviour ALLOW the implementation to do anything that
    > >> implementation-defined behaviour would not?
    > >> Does implementation-defined behaviour ALLOW the implementation to do
    > >> anything that unspecified behaviour would not?
    > >> Does unspecified behaviour ALLOW the implementation to do anything that
    > >> undefined behaviour would not?

    >
    > > No.

    >
    > Larry Jones, aren't you a member of the C standard committee? In that
    > case, this answer pretty much confirms my theory about a strict order
    > of freedom allowed.
    >


    What's the real purpose of the strict order you formed? Does it
    discover something new which simple reading of the standard doesn't?


    --
    Jun, Woong ()
    Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Seoul
     
    Jun Woong, Aug 24, 2003
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rolfe
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    391
    Rolfe
    Sep 29, 2003
  2. Michael
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    438
    Matt Hammond
    Jun 26, 2006
  3. Andy Chambers
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    395
    Daniel Dyer
    May 14, 2007
  4. Athel Cornish-Bowden
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    494
    dorayme
    Aug 14, 2011
  5. Robert Klemme

    With a Ruby Yell: more, more more!

    Robert Klemme, Sep 28, 2005, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    224
    Jeff Wood
    Sep 29, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page