Friendly-C

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 20:54:10 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
> If it was indeed unexpected then you're right, but how do you 
> know it wasn't intentional?

Because then it should have been declared volatile?

> If accessing an invalid pointer isn't unspecified behaviour 
> (which this discussion is about), then why shouldn't someone 
> rely on it?

Not sure what you mean by unspecified behaviour for pointers. The 
discussion was about unspecified values for value types.

The statement "a = a;" does nothing unless a is volatile. If a is 
read-only then the statement is incorrect. Removing an incorrect 
do-nothing statement is quite acceptable.