3 ms·

You argue if GCC and MSVC document their current undefined behaviour, they are creating new languages?

• steveklabnik 11y ago
  Not if they document it. But if you write a program that relies on those behaviors, you don't have C anymore, you have "GCC-C" or "MSVC-C". I'm also not saying that's inherently a bad thing.
  • geocar 11y ago
    Then we already have those languages: They exist because they are used. I'm not sure this is helpful though. We've accepted "literally" also means "not literally" without creating a new language.
    • steveklabnik 11y ago
      Yes, but that introduces some backwards incompatibility. The C standards body has a really, really high bar for doing so. English, not so much. That is a choice they're making.
    • kenko 11y ago
      > I'm not sure this is helpful though. We've accepted "literally" also means "not literally" without creating a new language. http://waste.typepad.com/waste/2014/07/on-a-popular-misconception-concerning-literally.html http://waste.typepad.com/waste/2014/07/on-a-popular-misconce... It's just a figurative use of "literally". It's like saying "He's such a baby" of an immature (<- also figurative!) adult. You aren't saying that such an adult is actually a baby.
    • scott_s 11y ago
      Programming languages necessarily have stricter definitions and semantics than human languages.