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 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: References: <55a42b8f.25228343@news.xs4all.nl> <435cc143-4ce0-4b10-a25b-92b0a638d9e6@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 David Kleinecke 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 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"