From: "Daniel Frey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 18:50:13 +0100, David Abrahams wrote: > > > Hum. It's fine to make Peter's particular example defined, but I'm a > > little concerned about asking to lift *all* undefined behavior for > > Maybe I'm missing something, but what about a pointer to some type T and > this: > > if( p ) p->f(); > > If p is 0, p->f(); is undefined, isn't it? But just because the > expression may be undefined (given some conditions or not) cannot make > the whole program undefined if the expression is not executed, right? > Otherwise the language would be completly useless...
Right. That's why I posted the example in the first place. However, there is a difference. Whether p->f() invokes undefined behavior is determined by the value of p (i.e., at runtime.) Whether passing x to an ellipsis invokes undefined behavior is determined by the type of x (i.e. at compile time.) _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
