3 ms·
I don't understand how implementation-defined and undefined behavior are not a part of the language semantics. They're specified in the language standard, and t
by tatterdemalion 10y ago
I don't understand how implementation-defined and undefined behavior are not a part of the language semantics. They're specified in the language standard, and they determine how the program code will be compiled. They're clearly part of the language.
The pretense that C is a simple language is equivocation, in my opinion.
- sidlls 10y agoHmmm, that's a fair point, since "which C" applies, but I think that's a deficiency in the standard and larger in scope than the point I intended.
- tatterdemalion 10y agoThere's an assumption that having fewer forms of abstraction, or fewer syntactic constructs, makes a language 'simple.' Certainly having to understand and choose between different forms of abstraction can make it difficult to use a language correctly, but the absence of that kind of complexity doesn't mean the language is necessarily simple.