Re: Acceptable indicies
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Acceptable indicies
- From: Sean Conner <sean@...>
- Date: 2011年8月31日 15:38:58 -0400
It was thus said that the Great Roberto Ierusalimschy once stated:
> > One further test. This time, going by what Lua 5.1.4 *does* and not by
> > what the documentation *says*.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Hmmm ... Roberto, can we expect this behavior, or is this a detail of the
> > implementaion?
>
> Did you not answer your question in that previous sentence?
Well, there's a difference between what an implementation *does* and what
the *specification* states. Just because some C compilers generated the
"expected" output from:
i = 0;
printf("%d %d %d\n",i++,i++,i++);
does not mean that's the intent of the C standard (and for the record,
I've seen comformant C compilers produce different output---even the same
compiler with different optimization options would produce different
output).
I tried my program with LuaJIT (2.0.0-beta2, old, but I haven't played
around with it since I don't really need it, and I can't use it at work
because we use the Sparc architecture), it being the only other Lua
implementation I have availble, and it too, produced the same output as Lua
5.1.4.
So, no, I'm still not sure of the answer at this point.
-spc
- References:
- Re: Acceptable indicies, Josh Simmons
- Re: Acceptable indicies, oliver
- Re: Acceptable indicies, Josh Simmons
- Re: Acceptable indicies, oliver
- Re: Acceptable indicies, Sean Conner
- Re: Acceptable indicies, Sean Conner
- Re: Acceptable indicies, liam mail
- Re: Acceptable indicies, Sean Conner
- Re: Acceptable indicies, Sean Conner
- Re: Acceptable indicies, Roberto Ierusalimschy