Re: Word For Today: “Uglification”

On 3/12/24 17:31, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 11:51:21 -0400, James Kuyper wrote:
 

... everything it says about one is about
the implementation as a whole, not the individual parts.

 
You don’t see the problem with trying avoid clashes between those parts?

Yes, I do, and so do implementors. Avoiding those clashes is their
responsibility. They are supposed to test their partial implementations
with implementations of other parts of C, and document which
combinations they claim qualify as conforming implementations of C. I'm
not saying this is required by the C standard, but only by their general
responsibility to produce a usable product.

The C standard only governs things which claim to be conforming
implementations of C. It cannot constrain things for which no such claim
has been made. If you want to rely upon guarantees provided by the C
standard, only use things which claim to meet its requirements.

Therefore, your responsibility is to read the documentation of any
partial implementations you put together, and only put together partial
implementations for which such a claim has been made.

Or, if you choose to mix and match partial implementations willy-nilly,
own your choice and don't complain about the results.