Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mailrus!uflorida!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: What's implementation defined? Message-ID: <9034@smoke.BRL.MIL> Date: 1 Dec 88 19:42:28 GMT References: <8457@alice.UUCP> <219@twwells.uucp> <1988Nov28.215053.3129@utzoo.uucp> <229@twwells.uucp> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB)) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 13 In article <229@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: -In article <1988Nov28.215053.3129@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: -: No; what we have here is a situation in which the legality of such a -: program is implementation-defined. It is not improper to fail to translate -: an illegal program. -Since this kind of thing occurs throughout the standard, I'm forced -to conclude that they intended that some things can be implementation -defined to be incorrect, regardless of the stated definition of -"implementation defined". This is a misreading of the proposed standard. "Implementation defined" does not give license to fail to translate the program. See the final Rationale document.