> The C standard is not too hard to understand. For something > worse try one of those ITU standards! Try IEEE 802 standards! > I have had to read the Bridging standard many many more times > (compared to the C standard) to make sense of it. The > standards *shouldn't* be so horrible but they are. And one > does what is needed to get the job done.
this is logical fallacy. the fact that there are larger and more obtuse standards, does not mean that the c standard is readable or understandable, by their normal definitions. > > Actually, it's wrong, because it overlooks the side-effect, and an > > optimiser for a language with side-effects > > should take that into account. > > They put in "volatile" to ensure side-effects happen. Hasn't > worked too well. that's incorrect. it was a hack to try to sneak a memory model in the side door. side effects are something else entirely. - erik
