Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!dcl-cs!gdt!gdr!exspes
From: exspes@gdr.bath.ac.uk (P E Smee)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: ambiguous ?
Message-ID: <1989Oct19.145653.15019@gdt.bath.ac.uk>
Date: 19 Oct 89 14:56:53 GMT
References: <11312@smoke.BRL.MIL> <14089@lanl.gov> <1989Oct17.203733.23121@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: exspes@gdr.bath.ac.uk (P E Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol c/o University of Bath
Lines: 14

In article <1989Oct17.203733.23121@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>A more accurate definition of _implementation_ _defined_ is that the
>behavior is determined by the implementation *and must be documented*.
>Otherwise it doesn't differ from _unspecified_ in any useful way.
>
How about, as a pragmatic distinction, the idea that if your program
relies on some effect of Implementation Defined behavior, it is correct
but non-portable; while if it relies on some effect of Unspecified
behavior, it is an incorrect program. ?
-- 
 Paul Smee               |    JANET: Smee@uk.ac.bristol
 Computer Centre         |   BITNET: Smee%uk.ac.bristol@ukacrl.bitnet
 University of Bristol   | Internet: Smee%uk.ac.bristol@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
 (Phone: +44 272 303132) |     UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!gdr.bath.ac.uk!exspes