more useful options | |
PerlMonks |
Re^4: Quantum Weirdness and the Increment Operatorby BrowserUk (Patriarch) |
on Jun 24, 2004 at 20:54 UTC ( [id://369484]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
I think the more accurate Comp-Sci phrase is "not well defined". For any given implementation, you can tell what will happen, because it is very unlikely to vary from what happened last time on that same implementation. It may well vary with other implementations. The implementers may (and do) choose not to define the behaviour.
Mostly, because if they do define the behaviour, then
But given the OP's disclaimer; statement that this was purely an academic exercise; etc.; his being condemned on the basis of a non-sequitous statement, and a short phrase in an obscure document that the behaviour "is same as C"--where it may be defined as not being well-defined, but my attempts to located such definition in K&R or Waite Group's guide haven't located it--hardly seems justified.
In Section
Meditations
|
|