Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Jun 30, 2005, at 8:48 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | | > | Really? You've talked to Stroustrup? | > | > I work with him on daily basis, and as a matter of fact we've discussed | > the heart of this topic of this thread yesterday over lunch. But, as | > much as I hate argument by authority I could not let this discussion | > goes on the slope it is taking without saying what I understood from | > discussion with him on the topic. It wasn't meant as a proof. Just a | > data point. Of course, it is far preferable he speaks for himself but | > it is hard to have him take part of a debate where extreme abstract | > arguments are more dominant than balance between two apparant | > conflicting goals. And that is, I guess, a wise thing to do just as | > core developers like RTH may have a say on this very issue :-) | | But the reason question is why make it an undefined behavior instead of | an implementation defined?
I cannot tell you exactly why it was made undefined behaviour. But, I can tell you from experience working in the C++ committee that there may be various reasons why something is left undefined (including oversight), not just because the committee thought it would be fun. In this specific case, I think (but I'm not 100% sure) it is a carry over from C90 (like many other "curious" cases). -- Gaby
