Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...]
| In fact K&R is much stronger than you think in terms of providing | a precise definition of the language. Too bad people did not read it. | | As I said earlier in this thread, people seem to think that the | standards committee invented something new here in making overflow | undefined, but I don't think that's the case. I personally would | have thought it more judicious to make it implementation defined, I'm not sure the original C specification made that fine distinction between "implementation defined" and "undefined behaviour". I'll have opportunity to check a manual from '77 nnot before two weeks from now. You're right that the unix room people were quite well accointed with formal techniques, type safety and soundness. However, they valued solving practical problems, over theoretical specification. Most of C language "reshaping" came from trying to port programs to new machines, etc. -- Gaby
