Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 |
| Date | 2015-07-14 08:48 -0700 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <lnio9mloyl.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> |
David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
> On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 2:22:53 PM UTC-7, Richard Bos wrote:
>> David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Appendix G.1 to the 1990 ISO Standard lists 22 unspecified behaviors
>> > recognized by the standard. These behaviors are of interest because
>> > an implementation of C is not required to document them.
>>
>> No, you keep getting this wrong.
>>
>> These behaviours are unspecified precisely because they are _not_ of
>> interest to the programmer. Note that this is stronger than "you need
>> not care about this": it's closer to "you _should_ not care about this".
>> If you start delving into the details of unspecified behaviour, you are
>> on a hiding to nothing; worse, you are setting yourself up to be trapped
>> by over-optimisations that break.
>
> I agree. The confusing part seems to be that people jump to the
> conclusion that documentation means a full description. All the
> documentation needs to say is that "this cannot be depended on"
> or words to that effect.
You agree?? Why didn't you say so in the first place??
From what you've been saying so far, I and others have reached
the conclusion that you want specific explicit documentation of
each choice for each case of unspecified behavior. Your stubborn
refusal to answer direct questions or to give any rationale for
your requirements has left us with no reasonable alternative to
that conclusion.
So are you now saying that if an implementation's documentation
included the following statement:
Unspecified behavior as described in the ISO C standard is
unspecified.
that would satisfy your requirements? (In my opinion such a
statement would be a waste of space; the standard already defines
the meaning of "unspecified behavior", and there's no need for an
implementation's documentation to repeat it.)
To be clear, that is not a rhetorical question. To be equally clear,
based on your recent posts here I do not expect you to answer it,
though I'm prepared to be pleasantly surprised.
--
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