Hi all,
  I'd like to have a terminology page for the spec.
At the moment, I am thinking about clearly describing terms like "implementation-defined behavior" and "undefined behavior", because there is so much confusion about it. I'm sure we'll run across more terms that need proper explanation (possibly referring to another location in the spec).

Do you agree?
If so, I'll work on adding it.

-Johan

On Monday, 14 January 2019 at 14:42:50 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
> Hi all,
>   I'd like to have a terminology page for the spec.
> At the moment, I am thinking about clearly describing terms like "implementation-defined behavior" and "undefined behavior", because there is so much confusion about it. I'm sure we'll run across more terms that need proper explanation (possibly referring to another location in the spec).

It seems you're looking for this page: https://dlang.org/glossary.

> Do you agree?
> If so, I'll work on adding it.

Yes, we really ought to define the terminology used better throughout the spec. "Implementation/undefined behavior" are not defined there (or anywhere else) as far as I can see. I think someone with a good eye for precise semantics such as yourself can make significant progress w.r.t making the spec more robust.

On 2019-01-14 18:04, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:

> It seems you're looking for this page: https://dlang.org/glossary.

That's mostly explaining abbreviations.

> Yes, we really ought to define the terminology used better throughout the spec. "Implementation/undefined behavior" 

Define "undefined" :). I like that.

> are not defined there (or anywhere else) as far as I can see. I think someone with a good eye for precise semantics such as yourself can make significant progress w.r.t making the spec more robust.

Yeah, I think we need this as well.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Monday, 14 January 2019 at 17:04:51 UTC, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:
>
> [..]
> "Implementation/undefined behavior" are not defined there (or anywhere else) as far as I can see.
> [..]

I clearly can't see as both "Implementation Defined Behavior" and "UB (Undefined Behavior)" are defined in https://dlang.org/glossary :facepalm:

On Monday, 14 January 2019 at 19:58:25 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2019-01-14 18:04, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:
>
>> It seems you're looking for this page: https://dlang.org/glossary.
>
> That's mostly explaining abbreviations.

There are other things besides abbreviations, but yeah a different page may be better suited for this. How about a chapter containing definitions similar to ch.1  "Foundations" from "Elements of Programming"?

On 2019-01-14 21:14, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:

> I clearly can't see as both "Implementation Defined Behavior" and "UB (Undefined Behavior)" are defined in https://dlang.org/glossary :facepalm:

UB mentions "illegal code construct", which doesn't seem to be defined.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2019-01-14 18:04, Petar via Dlang-internal wrote:
> On Monday, 14 January 2019 at 14:42:50 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>   I'd like to have a terminology page for the spec.
>> At the moment, I am thinking about clearly describing terms like "implementation-defined behavior" and "undefined behavior", because there is so much confusion about it. I'm sure we'll run across more terms that need proper explanation (possibly referring to another location in the spec).
> 
> It seems you're looking for this page: https://dlang.org/glossary.

The glossary is isn't part of the spec and the spec is bundled as e.g. ebook and pdf for offline usage.

>> Do you agree?
>> If so, I'll work on adding it.
> 
> Yes, we really ought to define the terminology used better throughout
> the spec.

Yes, that would be great :+1:

On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 at 11:25:03 UTC, Sebastian Wilzbach wrote:
> On 2019-01-14 18:04, Petar via Dlang-internal wrote:
>> On Monday, 14 January 2019 at 14:42:50 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>   I'd like to have a terminology page for the spec.
>>> At the moment, I am thinking about clearly describing terms like "implementation-defined behavior" and "undefined behavior", because there is so much confusion about it. I'm sure we'll run across more terms that need proper explanation (possibly referring to another location in the spec).
>> 
>> It seems you're looking for this page: https://dlang.org/glossary.
>
> The glossary is isn't part of the spec and the spec is bundled as e.g. ebook and pdf for offline usage.

OK, I'll try to add a page to the spec and populate it with (part of) that glossary page, thanks for the pointer.

-Johan

On 1/19/2019 7:54 AM, Johan Engelen wrote:
> On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 at 11:25:03 UTC, Sebastian Wilzbach wrote:
>> On 2019-01-14 18:04, Petar via Dlang-internal wrote:
>>> On Monday, 14 January 2019 at 14:42:50 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>   I'd like to have a terminology page for the spec.
>>>> At the moment, I am thinking about clearly describing terms like "implementation-defined behavior" and "undefined behavior", because there is so much confusion about it. I'm sure we'll run across more terms that need proper explanation (possibly referring to another location in the spec).
>>>
>>> It seems you're looking for this page: https://dlang.org/glossary.
>>
>> The glossary is isn't part of the spec and the spec is bundled as e.g. ebook and pdf for offline usage.
> 
> OK, I'll try to add a page to the spec and populate it with (part of) that glossary page, thanks for the pointer.

Why create a new page? Seems like a better solution is to include the glossary with the spec.

On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 at 09:13:20 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2019-01-14 21:14, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:
>
>> I clearly can't see as both "Implementation Defined Behavior" and "UB (Undefined Behavior)" are defined in https://dlang.org/glossary :facepalm:
>
> UB mentions "illegal code construct", which doesn't seem to be defined.

Undefined behavior is not about behavior at all. Its theme is meaning. Since meaning does not "happen", undefined behavior does not "happen" either. In this sense "undefined behavior" is a complete misnomer at least when used as if it refers to things located in the time domain.