Previously on HN: [flagged] C++ Standards Contributor Expelled for 'The Undefined Behavior Question' (slashdot.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=422262

Previously on HN: [flagged] C++ Standards Contributor Expelled for 'The Undefined Behavior Question' (slashdot.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42226250 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42226250 (84 points, 88 comments) Edit: Also, this PDF discussed on Reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1h0ximn/firsthand_account_of_the_undefined_behavior/ https://old.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1h0ximn/firsthand_acco... Wow, digging through the various threads, people are making a lot of claims (and counterclaims) made without any citation whatsoever, even when one should be easy to provide. At least Andrew Tomazos has the excuse of referring primarily to in-person incidents. There should be theoretically-verifiable proof of the email chain Andrew cited, but actually verifying it would be difficult for most people. I do think Andrew should post it in full (including Message-ID headers) nonetheless, since making the claim "this message-id is fake" is a much riskier counterclaim.