🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MATT.95Nov30185128@cyclops5.berkeley.edu>,
matt@cyclops5.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) wrote:

|> Section 1.3 of the draft standard says that undefined behavior is
|> "Behavior, such as might arise upon use of an erroneous program
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^
|> construct of or erroneous data, for which the standard imposes no
                   ^^^^^^^^^
|> requirements."  It also says that unspecified behavior is "Behavior,
|> for a correct program construct and correct data, that depends on the
         ^^^^^^^                       ^^^^^^^
|> implementation.  The implementation is not required to document which
|> behavior occurs.  [Note: usually, the range of possible behaviors is
|> delineated by the standard.]"
|> 
|> Now, as I read these definitions it seems to me that they're the same,

I've highlighted the important difference. Unspecified means it'll work
fine but we're not telling you how; undefined means it might do anything
(including not work at all).

Sean A. Corfield
Object Consultancy Services
C++ - Beyond the ARM - http://uptown.turnpike.net/~scorf/cplusext.html





---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]