After my post on undefined behavior in C some people insisted that it’s demonstrably fine, we know what the code will do, and at worst we’ll get a segfault.
The problem is that you’re assuming we don’t know what it means. It’s almost infantilizing. The people who know C well enough to complain about UB are ones who actually understand what it means.
In every one of these cases, all you need to do is convince the C and C++ committees to just define the behavior.
Right, because that’s so easy. It’s well known that the C and C++ WG are full of politiking. You’re being facetious. Not everyone can be in the working groups, but they can complain online. The hope is that with enough complaints, someone who is in the working groups does something. Same as politics in real life. Not everyone is cut out to be a Congress Critter, but they can hold a megaphone online.
The problem is that you’re assuming we don’t know what it means. It’s almost infantilizing. The people who know C well enough to complain about UB are ones who actually understand what it means.
Right, because that’s so easy. It’s well known that the C and C++ WG are full of politiking. You’re being facetious. Not everyone can be in the working groups, but they can complain online. The hope is that with enough complaints, someone who is in the working groups does something. Same as politics in real life. Not everyone is cut out to be a Congress Critter, but they can hold a megaphone online.
score 1 · canonical