Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: lvalue types
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:48:25 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <lnmuy1lldy.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <2b687d74-f559-43a9-9aec-8a1067467ce2@googlegroups.com> <5fe67088-8e80-478e-a622-02d16b64166a@googlegroups.com> <kfn7epmijc1.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <65e621e1-9bc2-4558-a36d-9712e792494f@googlegroups.com> <kfnvacxbo6r.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <117929cb-d6aa-45bc-a5d4-8566bb8c6d58@googlegroups.com> <33a55bca-4174-4e74-9444-8f7f2014b1ad@googlegroups.com> <390abe70-908f-4f19-b6f8-84ec38d3ea90@googlegroups.com> <64746e6c-0c23-47a6-a5d4-d15a33db4aed@googlegroups.com> <a4ad0855-8098-4bb3-b499-ca1ca457df99@googlegroups.com> <83589df8-fa61-4ffb-8fef-09ab50c8fcf4@googlegroups.com> <b9ba615a-a637-4c93-bd44-3f42d2578b2c@googlegroups.com> <646ca446-53a3-4006-a476-6f52caacd8c9@googlegroups.com> <uqcBC.238$o43.209@fx33.iad> <c2d54052-e0c6-4eef-b7c6-ff9839664bc7@googlegroups.com> <lnzi21ltpy.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <108b8472-481e-43b4-9988-2c7e4648449d@googlegroups.com> <lnvacplooa.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <2bf95ece-0d26-49aa-8629-87d9c47ef2ad@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="dcaeb3e1ef05ac06fdd3cc3805c02cf2"; logging-data="28873"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18e9A1efmxo9dF2BvV8WcvE"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OuyuEf8+07UCWp1jFw+hZX33zUQ= sha1:9RVonmnyYA3LL2mWpFED3hTEbz4=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:129358

supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 12:37:34 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Or you could just say that the standard as currently written says
>> the behavior is undefined (because it violates a "shall" outside
>> a constraint), and save us all a lot of time.
>> 
>> I fail to see the point of going off on a tangent about categories of
>> "portable" programs.
>
> Many people claim there's no particular need to have the Standard define
> certain things because implementations can do so whether or not the
> Standard does.  If the Standard is supposed to facilitate the writing of
> portable programs, having the standard needlessly characterize common
> constructs as "non-portable" undercuts that goal.

That's not what we're talking about here.

Nobody is saying that there's no need for the standard to define the
behavior of `obj.m = 42;`.  Either the standard *unintentionally* fails
to define the behavior and that's a flaw that needs to be corrected, or
the standard does define it.

"It's ok not to define the behavior of `obj.m = 42;`" is not
something that anyone has claimed explicitly or implicitly.

If that's the claim you're arguing against, you win.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"