Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!aplcen!unmvax!pprg.unm.edu!topgun.dspo.gov!lanl!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Time to standardize "true" and "false" Message-ID: <11180@smoke.BRL.MIL> Date: 28 Sep 89 21:18:15 GMT References: <12070@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <8862@etana.tut.fi> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 9 In article <8862@etana.tut.fi> pl@etana.tut.fi (Lehtinen Pertti) writes: - Then suddenly just behind the corner cames C-compiler from - ACME-corporation and realizes '!!a' -> negation of negation is - same as original -> we can optimize it away. The point is, it isn't a no-op. If ACME delivers a non-conforming implementation, you should hold them to your specification that requires Standard conformance.