Boost logo

Boost :

From: Bronek Kozicki (brok_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-22 15:21:08

Oliver Kullmann wrote:
> I have the C99 standard (as a book), while the C90 standard (I thought
> it would be C89?) seems to cost a fortune.

C++ explicitly referes to ISO/IEC 9899:1990 . You may call it C89, I
will to consistently call it C90. The point remains that C++ does not
refer to any newer version of the C standard.

>>I believe that C90 that C++
>>standard referes to, does not mention UB.
> But then it should be the case that the C99 standard only
> makes more precise what the older standard left out?

No. The wording in C90 standard is actually important. It simply leaves
this question not-standarized and the C++ standard does not add anything
in this respect. However, if (or rather when) C++ is updated to refer to
the newer version of the C standard, it will have to be considered.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at