Subj : Re: Non-strictly-conforming and unspecified versus undefinedbehavior
To   : comp.programming.threads,comp.std.c
From : Douglas A. Gwyn
Date : Wed Feb 23 2005 03:49 pm

Keith Thompson wrote:
> 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).

Indeed, the C and POSIX specs use different terminaology anyway:
The C standard talks about a "strictly conforming program", while
the POSIX spec talks about a "strictly conforming POSIX application".
That word "POSIX" provides a crucial piece of information!

> 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).

And actually it is not clear why it ever got cross-posted to
comp.std.c -- was there some point of the C standard that needed
clarification?

.