[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


> Obviously, we need a term which allows a reasonable number of
> implementation options without allowing GCC-like obnoxious behavior.

I am not convinced that we do.

> This is part of what the whole committee has to consider when we
> decide what our new set of error terms should be.  My claim is simply
> that we badly need to break "is an error" down into some more
> controlled and useful cases everywhere in the standard.


> PS: In fact the CLOS spec defines "unspecified" as harmless at worst.
>     There is another term, "undefined", that allows crash and burn.
>     (88-002R, pp. 1-6,1-7)

I would be interested to know how this distiction works in practice.
I suppose "not immediately harmful" might work.