At 06:16 PM 1/26/2003, David Abrahams wrote: >Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 18:50:13 +0100, David Abrahams wrote: >> >>> Hum. It's fine to make Peter's particular example defined, but I'm a >>> little concerned about asking to lift *all* undefined behavior for >> >> Maybe I'm missing something, but what about a pointer to some type T and >> this: >> >> if( p ) p->f(); >> >> If p is 0, p->f(); is undefined, isn't it? But just because the >> expression may be undefined (given some conditions or not) cannot make >> the whole program undefined if the expression is not executed, right? >> Otherwise the language would be completly useless... > >Yes, but normally there's no way to detect that p will be 0 at >compile-time. If, however, you write: > > T* p = 0; > if (p) p->f(); > >I think undefined behavior is allowed to be manifested during >translation.
Really? Why do you think that? _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
