Yuri Pudgorodsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > Furthermore, I've read people suggesting that we are gratuitously | > broking code. That is misleading. The code was invoking undefined | > behaviour and, before, we did not make any explicit guarantee about | > the semantics. | > It is one thing to argue for changing gear; but, one should try to | > stay in "honest bounds". | > | > | I'm not exactly opposed to that, but I do | > | wonder if it's the best use of people's time. But this is free | > | software, and people choose their own priorities. | > | > Yup. We just have to make sure we don't end up in a mess. | > | > -- Gaby | > | | What I actually trying to get attention to, is the fact the we make | undefined behavior | even more undefined in *some* cases while leaving others intact.
I believe I understand your general objection. I don't feel strongly about the current behaviour, except that if it has to change then it must be a documented extension. I don't think we can meaningfully order the space of "undefined behaviour" and single out some as are "more undefined behaviour than others". -- Gaby