www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Re: On C/C++ undefined behaviours (on the term "undefined behaviours")

reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Bruno Medeiros:

 [...mumble mumble...]
 I don't like this term "undefined behavior"
 [...mumble mumble...]

I really don't care about words, and about C, I want signed/unsigned compile-time/run-time overflow errors in D. Bye, bearophile
Oct 06 2010
parent Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
Note: I've only seen this message now, since I am several threads late 
in the (date-ordered) queue of unread NG threads, and this message 
appeared as a new thread.


On 06/10/2010 21:00, bearophile wrote:
 Bruno Medeiros:

 [...mumble mumble...]
 I don't like this term "undefined behavior"
 [...mumble mumble...]

I really don't care about words, and about C, I want signed/unsigned compile-time/run-time overflow errors in D. Bye, bearophile

Like I mentioned afterwards, I think communication is important, so we should strive to have a clear understanding of the terms we and other people use. But anyways, regarding this issue, I am satisfied. The D glossary and TDPL have precisely defined "undefined behavior", which I didn't know was the case. Also, the related term "implementation defined", which some people in the C world equivocate with "undefined behavior", has been used here in D, but in also in a more accurate way, distinct from "undefined behavior". So that's good. -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Oct 29 2010