Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: ambiguous ?
Message-ID: <11330@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 19 Oct 89 09:12:29 GMT
References: <11318@smoke.BRL.MIL> <14090@lanl.gov>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 19

In article <14090@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
-From article <11318@smoke.BRL.MIL>, by gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn):
-> The proposed ANSI Standard for C leaves the order of argument
-> evaluation unspecified, thus it depends on the implementation.
-> This is indeed the way it always has been.
-
-If they had meant that the behaviour was simply implementation defined,
-that's what they would have said.

If *I* had meant that the behavior was implementation defined, that's
what *I* would have said!  Can't you read, or what?

-The standard SPECIFICALLY separates the concept of implementation
-defined from the concept of unspecified behaviours.

You look mighty foolish trying to "explain" this to me.

	- D A Gwyn
	  X3J11 Response Document Editor