home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.modula3,comp.lang.modula2,comp.lang.eiffel
- Path: alexandria.organon.com!alexandria!jsa
- From: jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony)
- Subject: Re: Hungarian notation
- In-Reply-To: miker3@ix.netcom.com's message of Fri, 26 Jan 1996 03:04:17 GMT
- Message-ID: <JSA.96Jan26175507@organon.com>
- Sender: news@organon.com (news)
- Organization: Organon Motives, Inc.
- References: <30C40F77.53B5@swsbbs.com> <4d2ok0$69s@beach.and.nl>
- <4dtv3gINNo9u@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>
- <SPENCER.96Jan22113215@zorgon.ERA.COM> <4e1nd8$hv0@solutions.solon.com>
- <3104bfc8.132251392@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <dewar.822407919@schonberg>
- <3106260f.224013120@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <4e6oj9$o02@news.xmission.com>
- <31077335.52859072@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <JSA.96Jan25190824@organon.com>
- <310842ad.6002240@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 22:55:07 GMT
-
- In article <310842ad.6002240@nntp.ix.netcom.com> miker3@ix.netcom.com (Mike Rubenstein) writes:
-
- > jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony) wrote:
- >
- > > In article <31077335.52859072@nntp.ix.netcom.com> miker3@ix.netcom.com (Mike Rubenstein) writes:
- > >
- > > > I think you're reading something into my post that isn't there.
- > > >
- > > > What am I reading into the standard that's not there? Nothing in my
- > > > post suggests that defining the result as always 0 is illegal. In
- > > > fact, it is clearly legal.
- > > >
- > > > But the standard does impose some restrictions on the definition. The
- > > > definition must specify that the subject type is converted to the
- > > > object type. It must not produce side-effects.
- > > >
- > > > Please reread my post; I was responding to the statement that the
- > > > definition could be to delete the system disk. That is out of bounds
- > > > for the definition and I said so. I did not say that defining the
- > > > result to be 0 is out of bounds.
- > >
- > > Face it. You just plain got it wrong. Deleting the system disk is
- > > perfectly within bounds. Stupid, for sure, as no one in their right
- > > mind would use such a compiler, but perfectly legal.
- >
- > Please cite anything in the standard that supports your position. I
- > can find nothing in the standard that gives an implementation that
- > license.
- >
- > Insults do not prove a point -- quotes from the standard do. I've
- > shown the passages that support my position.
-
- I don't see any insult here at all. Sorry if you took it that way.
-
- Here's the relevant passage yet again:
-
- When a value with integral type is demoted to a signed integer
- with smaller size or an unsigned integer is converted to its
- corresponding signed integer, if the value cannot be
- represented the result is implementation defined.
-
- Now, the problem is (as James Kanze has pointed out) that the term
- "result" which you believe to know the "correct" definition of, is not
- defined. Because of this it _could_ be taken as meaning "result of
- the computation". You take it as a given that it means "result of the
- expression", i.e., its value. But that is not clear, and so an
- interpretation given the former reading would indeed allow for
- virtually any sort of behavior as long as that behavior was
- documented. As James Kanze pointed out, a very _reasonable_
- interpretation given this reading of "result" would be to to signal
- (raise) an exception.
-
- /Jon
-
- --
- Jon Anthony
- Organon Motives, Inc.
- 1 Williston Road, Suite 4
- Belmont, MA 02178
-
- 617.484.3383
- jsa@organon.com
-
-