On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, James Dennett wrote: > Therefore, a case can be made that *for an implementation > in which a type has no trap values*, an indeterminate > value must correspond to some specific value. In other > words: reading an uninitialized int is undefined behavior > only if int includes trap representations in a given > implementation. Otherwise, all we have is an unspecified > (but valid) value, which is a common assumption. > > I'm not sure that I like this conclusion, but I've not > seen a really good argument against it.
DR#260 seems clear enough that indeterminate values may be treated distinctly from determinate values including randomly changing at any time. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/dr_260.htm -- Joseph S. Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
