Subj : Re: Non-strictly-conforming and unspecified versus undefined
To   : comp.programming.threads,comp.std.c
From : Keith Thompson
Date : Sat Feb 19 2005 02:41 am

"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> writes:
> "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> wrote in message 
> news:421654A5.B02EA299@null.net...
[...]
>> No program that uses *any* POSIX-specific feature
>> can be "strictly conforming" as the term is used by
>> the C standard.
>
>     Right, so that's obviously not what we're talking about, is it?

No, it wasn't obvious.  This discussion is cross-posted to
comp.programming.threads and comp.std.c.  Here in comp.std.c, since
the C standard defines the term "strictly conforming", it's obvious to
most of us that that's what the phrase refers to.  I didn't know until
just recently that POSIX also uses the term (with a different meaning,
of course); I suspect most of the comp.std.c regulars weren't aware of
that either.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center             <*>  <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this.

.