On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 22:31, Scott McMurray <me22.ca+boost@gmail.com> wrote:
1) The committee does not like to have the semantics of well-formed programs in one revision of the standard have different semantics in a later revision, and as such will only make such changes if they are unavoidable or, possibly, if they are determined to not affect any cases of consequence.
Sorry, I just realized I'm using the wrong term here. (Well-formed programs can invoke UB, and removing UB is obviously something the committee likes, where reasonable.) It should read, "The committee does not like for programs with well-defined semantics (i.e. those that are well-formed and invoke neither undefined, implementation-defined, nor unspecified behaviour) in one revision of the standard have different semantics in a later revision, and ..."