Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Dietmar Schindler, post: 2467386"] I can only refer to n1124, but I think you seriously misquoted the last clause. It reads there: they all describe "behavior that is undefined". The quotation marks make a crucial difference. Without them, the verb 'describe' relates to 'behavior', and that behavior be undefined. This is nonsense: behavior which is described is not undefined. With the correct quotation, the verb 'describe' relates to the phrase 'behavior that is undefined’’'. Thus, there is no description of behavior, but merely a description of that phrase. Failure to differentiate between these often leads to ridiculous statements like "code invokes undefined behavior". Behavior which is invoked is defined *de facto* by the result of its very invocation. It would be acceptable to say "code has undefined behavior", which just means "the behavior of the code is not defined by the International Standard". Undefined behavior, by the way, does also not mean "anything can happen". Even if the International Standard does not forbid a certain event, there are still other authorities, such as the laws of physics. I get a headache every time I read about those (in)famous 'nasal demons'. Yet, one might say that this headache is caused just by those demons waiting to fly out of my nose. [/QUOTE]