On C/C++ undefined behaviours (on the term "undefined behaviours")

[Bruno Medeiros]

Note: I've only seen this message now, since I am several threads late 
in the (date-ordered) queue of unread NG threads, and this message 
appeared as a new thread.


On 06/10/2010 21:00, bearophile wrote:
> Bruno Medeiros:
>
>> [...mumble mumble...]
>> I don't like this term "undefined behavior"
>> [...mumble mumble...]
>
> I really don't care about words, and about C, I want signed/unsigned compile-time/run-time overflow errors in D.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

Like I mentioned afterwards, I think communication is important, so we 
should strive to have a clear understanding of the terms we and other 
people use.

But anyways, regarding this issue, I am satisfied. The D glossary and 
TDPL have precisely defined "undefined behavior", which I didn't know 
was the case.
Also, the related term "implementation defined", which some people in 
the C world equivocate with "undefined behavior", has been used here in 
D, but in also in a more accurate way, distinct from "undefined 
behavior". So that's good.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer