Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| Path | csiph.com!optima2.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 |
| Date | Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:23:32 -0700 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Lines | 29 |
| Message-ID | <ln615mlhsr.fsf@kst-u.example.com> (permalink) |
| References | <cc105b32-29a2-40ee-8eef-feaef5ee8560@googlegroups.com> <55a42b8f.25228343@news.xs4all.nl> <435cc143-4ce0-4b10-a25b-92b0a638d9e6@googlegroups.com> <lnio9mloyl.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <d5963c50-6159-4137-940d-f5d08a0a257e@googlegroups.com> |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
| Injection-Info | mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="945944de09706c9b4e29b53c9d2efdc2"; logging-data="26658"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18BjXHeDpqaRixlwJT4vyVj" |
| User-Agent | Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:XD8OJygzp4QS8ljV47GOyBWgICI= sha1:Wkg3rq0q8fu8WMaoHRBW3x3UQLM= |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.c:65577 |
Show key headers only | View raw
David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> On the other hand the order of evaluation of arguments needs to be
> documented because perhaps the order is predictable.
No, the order of evaluation doesn't need to be documented.
That's why it isn't.
> A blanket statement is too simple but brief statements will usually
> suffice.
A blanket statement (in this case, that the order of evaluation
of function arguments is unspecified) is exactly as simple as it
needs to be. That statement is already in the C standard, and
does not need to be repeated in an implementation's documentation.
No more information than that is necessary, and a requirement to
provide such information would impose an unreasonable burden on
implementers with little or no corresponding benefit either to
implementers or to programmers.
Nothing prevents implementers from providing such documentation,
and if it were useful to users there would be market pressure for
them to do so.
--
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"
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-09 11:21 -0700
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-09 14:54 -0400
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-09 21:38 +0100
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-13 21:22 +0000
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 08:21 -0700
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-14 08:48 -0700
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 09:33 -0700
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-14 18:08 +0100
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 19:38 -0700
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-16 00:47 -0400
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 17:10 -0700
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-16 21:17 -0400
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 maddoxr@acm.org - 2015-07-17 07:43 -0700
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-16 09:35 +0100
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 17:18 -0700
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-17 01:45 +0100
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-16 21:19 -0400
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-17 12:14 -0400
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-17 11:00 -0700
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-19 21:24 +0000
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-16 07:40 -0700
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 17:20 -0700
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-17 01:49 +0100
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-14 11:23 -0700
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-14 15:11 -0400
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 19:46 -0700
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-16 01:50 -0400
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 17:15 -0700
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-17 01:39 +0100
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-16 22:26 -0400
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-19 21:22 +0000
Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-19 17:57 -0400
csiph-web