you are missing the point by focusing on the pedantics of language policing. Whatever.
On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Steinar H. Gunderson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 10:06:46AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> sweet sassy molassy... what if the implementation defines that >> behavior as spawning small gnomes? Then it's OK? That >> would be defined and implementation-defined, but so what? > > No, it needs to output an integer (without crashing or anything odd like > that), but it is free to choose what integer, as long as is it consistent. > I don't have the standard in front of me, so beware of errors, but it would > AFAIK be allowed to e.g. convert all overflowing numbers to 12345. > > Not that this would be very useful behavior, of course. > > /* Steinar */ > -- > Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ >
