Friendly-C

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 20:41:34 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 18:46:20 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>> It does. An access that can potentially fault is more or less 
>> equivalent to this:
>>
>>    if(p is null)
>>        throw new Error();
>>    *p = ...;
>>
>> When you remove the access, you're removing the test, which 
>> changes program semantics.
>
> No, if the access can trap unexpectedly then the program was 
> incorrect to begin with. A deliberate exception is not the same 
> as an unexpected trap.

If it was indeed unexpected then you're right, but how do you 
know it wasn't intentional? If accessing an invalid pointer isn't 
unspecified behaviour (which this discussion is about), then why 
shouldn't someone rely on it?