From -6470390069172592989 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,174aa7b34b06a51 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.speakeasy.net!news.speakeasy.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:50:01 -0600 Return-Path: X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) Delivered-To: std-c++@ucar.edu Message-Id: <200512201341.jBKDfYuC056013@horus.isnic.is> From: Hyman Rosen Subject: Re: Is this really unspecified behavior? MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ References: <1132759176.368850.264850@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1132933832.802917.153350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1133551647.532929.325730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1133583412.951239.208510@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1133910546.716987.80030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <0l5ep1ppfhdj5p1pcu7e4na4ub0vjajlq3@4ax.com> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ucar.edu X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.mu.OZ.AU Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.mu.OZ.AU Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:48:07 CST Lines: 20 NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.182.171.162 X-Trace: sv3-hpXbhMeqXCKadlb60rLMZX32hxN8gi90qhKiqG0bPnuHIHYq17Lr5oS3jiYPuvEA//OzoTAj+m+oJkR!vj+0HNFS7N6L3YV6JTVzvaluRNbguZxoeIWX5thQRU4MZqDggobH4W1KwcAAxR+GWy4UvHjcC3N1!oVF3/5VqDDSIlnEoRjIzibVW2lHh X-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:2858 Andrew Koenig wrote: > Dijkstra claims that this indeterminacy in *language* definition is a good > thing because it allows programmers to avoid overspecification in *program* > definition. Which is all fine and good if you believe that the programmer has actually considered the possibility that more than one guard is true. I suppose that's the case if you're proving that your code is correct (and you don't make a mistake in doing that), but lots of people don't do that in C++. I think it's much more likely for two guards to be true because the programmer has made an error rather than actually not caring which branch is executed. --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]