Article View: comp.std.c
Article #3666Re: Wishful thinking: return-parameter
From: Clive D.W. Feather
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 1995 11:34
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 1995 11:34
19 lines
1458 bytes
1458 bytes
In article <n/NIwQ9ytldJ084yn@csn.net>, Thad Smith <ThadSmith@acm.org> wrote: >In article <3vp60e$o8c@solutions.solon.com>, >seebs@solutions.solon.com (Peter Seebach) wrote: >> I think we're disagreeing about the use of "undefined". The use of >> an uninitialized float is undefined behavior, right? So, are you >> advocating undefined behavior as part of the normal functioning of the >> routine? I can see "I don't care what value goes here", I can't see >> "I want this undefined". > Intersection coordinates, in the case that there is no > intersection, is a good example where an undefined return value makes > sense. I think the Standard's term that you are both looking for is "unspecified": the value must be safe to use, but nothing states what it is. -- Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler, clive@demon.net (work, preferred) | it will get its revenge. clive@stdc.demon.co.uk (home) | - Henry Spencer
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<DCw04t.MwF@stdc.demon.co.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!stdc.demon.co.uk!cliveReferences:
<3ver2u$8bk@caip.rutgers.edu> <3vnqah$1ev@news.cs.tu-berlin.de> <3vp60e$o8c@solutions.solon.com> <n/NIwQ9ytldJ084yn@csn.net>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!stdc.demon.co.uk!clive From: clive@stdc.demon.co.uk (Clive D.W. Feather) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: Wishful thinking: return-parameter Date: Sun, 6 Aug 1995 11:34:04 GMT Organization: Demon Internet Limited (personal account) Message-ID: <DCw04t.MwF@stdc.demon.co.uk> References: <3ver2u$8bk@caip.rutgers.edu> <3vnqah$1ev@news.cs.tu-berlin.de> <3vp60e$o8c@solutions.solon.com> <n/NIwQ9ytldJ084yn@csn.net> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: stdc.demon.co.uk