Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!twwells!bill
From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: ambiguous ?
Message-ID: <1989Oct19.225004.20120@twwells.com>
Date: 19 Oct 89 22:50:04 GMT
References: <11318@smoke.BRL.MIL> <14090@lanl.gov>
Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Lines: 23

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

Perhaps this silly argument will go away when the participants
realize that they are arguing over the difference between
implementation *dependent* and implementation-*defined*? The
former is descriptive and has no special meaning; the latter is a
special term defined in the standard.

Check back and I think you'll see that Doug did not say that this
was implementation-*defined*.

---
Bill                    { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.com