[L2Ork-dev] UB (was Re: Suggestions for PurrD GSoC 2018)

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

On 2018-03-13 10:48, Albert Graef wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:49 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig at iem.at> wrote:
>> you are right, of course i am 100% against any "feature" that would make
>> it easier for people to create patches with undefined behaviour.
> 
> IOhannes, you're right on this, of course.

i actually don't want to get into discussion whether this is a feature
the purr-data should have or not (which is entirely up to the discretion
of the purr powers that be).

> But there are (few)
> situations where you simply don't (have to) care about the execution
> order. Also, one might argue that Pd *has* in fact a defined (though
> officially unspecified) behavior in this case, namely that the

that's a good one.
could you please point me to a single instance of UB in any
implementation of any computer language where this is not true?

fgamsdr
IOhannes

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://disis.music.vt.edu/pipermail/l2ork-dev/attachments/20180314/e843e451/attachment.sig>