🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec21.225604.18749@netcom.com> rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes:
>The ANSI C standard says (in 3.5.2.2):
>	"Each enumerated type shall be compatible with an integer type;
>	the choice of type is implementation-defined."
>I interpret it to mean that there *must* exist some integer type `T' such that
>		enum E { red, green, blue } object;
>		enum E object;
>		T object;
>... is a valid translation unit.
>The person on the other side of this discussion seems to be claiming that
>[...] the implementation may "put the fix in" so that no matter what type
>you try to use for `T', the implementation will say "Sorry.  You guessed wrong

Being implementation-defined means that it must be documented.  Regarding
some other implementation-defined matters (e.g. which of two possible results
is obtained from the % operator) most of the regulars in this newsgroup seem
to feel that the implementation must define a result that is identical over
all usages.  This kind of opinion suggests that the documentation must tell
you which type you can use for `T'.

My opinion is that the documentation can tell you that the implementation
plays dirty pool.  However, I seem to be a minority of 1.

Surely an interpretation ruling would carry more weight than any of the above.
--
Norman Diamond       diamond@jit081.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.
"It's been a lovely recession."