Follow-up Comment #12, bug #67992 (group groff): [comment #11 comment #11:] > Every[1] Turing-complete language with a specification has > "implementation-dependent behavior".
Likely an overstatement on my part.
Some extremely small ("toy") programming languages are capable of arbitrary
computation but might be able to claim absence of implementation-dependent
behavior. Perhaps this is true of Brainfuck, or a one-instruction computer
(such as one where the only instruction is DJNZ), or a zero-instruction
computer (a "move machine" or "transport-triggered" machine).
For elucidation and one's (dubious) edification, see S. Dolan's paper about
the x86 architecture, "[https://drwho.virtadpt.net/files/mov.pdf mov is
Turning-complete]".
My point was more that languages that are intended to be "practical", and with
which I am familiar, always seem to have escape hatches for
implementation-defined behavior.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?67992>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
