13 May
2005
13 May
'05
12:42 p.m.
Point taken; my first guess was 0 0 0, but it is apparently left
ambiguous by the standards committee. I did use the term "almost
always" to hedge, but still, you're right.
Nevertheless, for any given compiler there is only one interpretation.
So I hereby clarify my statement to say that programming languages as
implemented by actual compilers or interpreters are the most succinct,
clear and unambigious specification languages imaginable.
To another poster's point about "overspecification," I guess that's
true. So? That's what comments and thoughtful use of identifiers is
for.
Sorry my first couple of posts on the list are to OT threads. I'll try
to do better in the future :-)
-- John.