Subj : Re: Non-strictly-conforming and unspecified versus undefined behavior
To   : comp.programming.threads,comp.std.c
From : James Kuyper
Date : Tue Feb 22 2005 05:03 pm

David Schwartz wrote:
> "James Kuyper" <kuyper@saicmodis.com> wrote in message 
> news:421B9EE2.2050507@saicmodis.com...
....
>     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.

You shouldn't have to read an entire thread (most of it posted to a 
newsgroup you don't regularly read) to understand a newly cross-posted 
message.

>>If a message is going to be cross-posted to comp.std.c, it should be 
>>written to use C jargon only when the C standard meaning is the intended 
>>meaning of that jargon.
>>You're correct; a program that makes any non-trivial use of POSIX is not a 
>>strictly conforming C program.
> 
> 
>     There's no way to know what newsgroups replies to your posts are going 
> to be cross-posted to.

True: it's the responsibility of the first cross-poster to ensure that 
the new audience has been appropriately informed of the context of the 
cross-posted message. I don't believe that was done in this case.

.