Subject: Re: [ub] Sized integer types and char bits
From: Lawrence Crowl (Lawrence_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-24 18:10:29
On 10/24/13, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Lawrence Crowl
> > While it is a bit daunting of a task, changing the definition of
> > builtin-operators to state their preconditions explicitly would
> > help to lessen the surprise at removing the explicit condition.
> Would you volunteer to take a first stab at it?
I do not think I should add this task to my plate.
> > > I suppose a subsidiary question is whether INT_MAX is considered
> > > 'correct data' for the operation "++i".
> > I say i == INT_MAX violates the operation's precondition.
> Our current Standardese vocabulary for Core does not include this.
Not explicitly, but by implication. Avoiding the undefined behavior
of overflow implies the precondition.
> Are you saying that it is correct data (of type int) but violates
> the domain of definition of prefix increment?
> Or are you suggesting that we should introduce a new category?
> Or are you suggesting we should all go home because everything
> is fine (undefined behavior)? :-)
No. We clearly have a need to clarify what we mean and clarify
to the community how we feel the language should be used.
> It would be good if we can seize the opportunity to do
> something in this area.
-- Lawrence Crowl
SG12 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com