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.