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.