Am 06.11.24 um 11:32 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
That's not how standards work. It's behaviour undefined by the
standard, i.e. undefined behaviour. If it isn't forbidden, or strictly
defined, it's still standard compliant.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. If it's "undefined behaviour"
than it's not "standard compliant".
I am just going to leave this here, so *all* of you are on the same page:
A standard (doesn't matter which) can define certain things, outlaw
certain things or leave things undefined.
We often have multiple different standard at play and things get VERY
interesting when the definitions clash, but this isn't relevant here and
too messy to leave in an email, but the outcome depends on the clash.
Anyway in case every involved standard leaves something undefined, an
implementor of a standard can go and either define it itself (in which
case the behaviour is clear again) or leave it undefined. The implemetor
in this case would be Fedora, I guess. As far as I understand things,
this case wasn't defined, so it's still undefined.
In case a behaviour is undefined, the actually measured behaviour can be
random, it can just not work, or do something else, and it can change
even every patch.
Relying on undefined behaviour, no matter the situation or standard, is
always a bug and brittle.
Regards
Kilian Hanich
--
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
