Implementation-defined

[T. William Wells]

In article <22536 at watmath.waterloo.edu> jagardner at watmath.waterloo.edu (Jim Gardner) writes:
: The important point about the term "implementation-defined"
: is that it applies to *behavior*.  It is used in connection
: with code whose syntax and use is correct, but whose behavior
: can vary from machine to machine.

Right. But the point I'm making is that there are things in the
standard which are called "implementation defined" which *determine*
what use is correct, e.g.,

	int     x;
	enum foo x;

Whether using `enum foo' is correct or not depends on something
implementation defined: which type enum foo is compatible with.  The
problem seems to stem from the fact that "implementation defined" is
of behavior, but the use in this case is of semantics.

Again, I believe that the stated definition of "implementation
defined" is incomplete; the standard frequently labels things to be
implementation defined which are not behaviors.  And for those
things, the restrictions on "implementation defined", that the
construct in question be correct and that the implementation be
required to accept it, do not apply.

---
Bill
{uunet|novavax}!proxftl!twwells!bill