ambiguous ?

[T. William Wells]

In article <14090 at lanl.gov> jlg at lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
: From article <11318 at smoke.BRL.MIL>, by gwyn at smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn):
: > The proposed ANSI Standard for C leaves the order of argument
: > evaluation unspecified, thus it depends on the implementation.
: > This is indeed the way it always has been.
:
: If they had meant that the behaviour was simply implementation defined,
: that's what they would have said.  The standard SPECIFICALLY separates
: the concept of implementation defined from the concept of unspecified
: behaviours.

Perhaps this silly argument will go away when the participants
realize that they are arguing over the difference between
implementation *dependent* and implementation-*defined*? The
former is descriptive and has no special meaning; the latter is a
special term defined in the standard.

Check back and I think you'll see that Doug did not say that this
was implementation-*defined*.

---
Bill                    { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill at twwells.com