Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: ambiguous ?
Message-ID: <14093@lanl.gov>
Date: 19 Oct 89 22:47:49 GMT
References: <11330@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 27

From article <11330@smoke.BRL.MIL>, by gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn):
> In article <14090@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
> -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

I am _not_ trying to "explain" this.  I don't agree with it, so I don't
have an explanation of it at all.  I am simply stating a fact which
can be determined by direct reference to the proposed standard itself.
The standard specifically contains the two concepts _separately_.
The meaning of this separation is clear - the implementation is _not_
required to specify a particular interpretation of "unspecified"
features.  That is, the interpretation of such features is not
required to be consistant _within_ an given implementation - much
less between different implementations.

That is the only way to interpret the way the proposed standard is
worded.  As for an _explanation_, I offer none.  You are correct
if you are implying that an explanation is due.  You _may_ even
be the proper one to provide such an explanation.

Frankly, I think the standard committee looks mightly foolish
having defined the standard in this way....