"Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...]
| >Maybe you should reread what I was replying to: | > | > On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 08:57:20AM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: | >> But the whole idea of hardware semantics is bogus, since you are | >> assuming some connection between C and the hardware which does not | >> exist. C is not an assembly language. | > | > That is what I utterly disagree with. | | Well, I don't utterly _anything_ about either his position or yours. C is | not just a high level assembler, it has complex and abstract semantics | imposed on that; it may have been reasonable to treat it as such back in the | very early K'n'R days, but it has changed massively since then. I also | agree that reasoning in the utter abstract about languages is not | necessarily very useful in practice, but it is a perfectly reasonable way to | define a baseline against which it becomes possible to analyze the | similarities and differences of any real-world implementation. when the baseline is that C or C++ has not connection with whardware semantics", it becomes ridiculous and uninteresting. -- Gaby
