Subj : Re: Non-strictly-conforming and unspecified versus undefined
To   : comp.programming.threads,comp.std.c
From : Keith Thompson
Date : Tue Feb 22 2005 10:03 pm

"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> writes:
> "James Kuyper" <kuyper@saicmodis.com> wrote in message 
> news:421B9EE2.2050507@saicmodis.com...
>> David Schwartz wrote:
>>>     Your definition of a "strictly conforming program" would then not 
>>> include any program that uses anything from POSIX.
>
>> It's not "his" definition, it's the definition contained in the C 
>> standard, and is therefore the definition that applies by default in 
>> comp.std.c.
>
>     It is his choice to use the definition from the C standard, there are 
> other definitions in other standards. I agree that it applies "by default", 
> but certainly a crosspost to comp.programming.threads and direct references 
> to POSIX threads should be sufficient to override the default given that the 
> POSIX standard defines "strictly conforming" a different way. Also, the term 
> "strictly conforming" was used in the thread long before it was crossposted 
> to comp.std.c; how the comp.std.c defaults could retroactively apply to a 
> thread and change the meanings of the words in it is a mystery.

Sigh.

As a regular reader of comp.std.c, I naturally assumed that "strictly
conforming" referred to the term as defined in the C standard.  I had
no idea, prior to this discussion, that the POSIX standard also uses
the term "strictly conforming" -- and there's no particular reason I
should have known that.  When someone posted in comp.std.c using the
phrase "strictly conforming" in an odd way, it was easier to assume
that he was using it incorrectly than that it was a well-defined term
from another standard (we've seen far worse nonsense than that).
Perhaps if I had spent 5 minutes thinking about it and/or doing some
research, I might have realized what was going on, but I don't spend 5
minutes on each Usenet article.

So my assumption was incorrect.  Now I know better, as do the other
comp.std.c regulars, many of whom undoubtedly made the same (quite
reasonable, IMHO) assumption.

Now that everyone understands what's going on, I suggest that further
arguments about who should have assumed what would be unproductive
(and not particularly interesting).

-- 
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.

.