Comment by dataflow

> Notice though "ignoring the situation" thru "documented manner characteristic of the environment".

I noticed that. Those are 100% consistent & implied by the parts of the standard I quoted that you are ignoring, though.

What you're doing is:

- Arguing is that those phrases describe the totality of the implications, rather than mere examples, without providing anything to base this method of argumentation on.

- Completely ignoring the other phrases I quoted, which (taken at face value) contradict your reading.

- Claiming that anyone who disagrees is being insincere(?) and reading the standard uncharitably.

- Not even attempting to support this line of reasoning through other arguments.

So you're not only asking people to read contradictions into the standard, but also insinuating that people who don't are not arguing in good faith. That... honestly isn't a winning strategy.

Note that I'm not even saying your conclusion regarding their intent is necessarily wrong. I'm just saying your argument is bad. And that there is a difference between what the rules are and what some people believe their authors intended them to be.

If I wanted to argue your position, I would look for other parts of the standard where they do what you're claiming. That is, where the literal meaning of the wording would be crazy, and which would clearly contract what everyone believes the authors of the standard intended it to mean. Then you would at least have some basis for extrapolating that line of reasoning to this paragraph. At that point you might at least get an acknowledgment from the other side that the standard is unclear and/or has a defect, even if they didn't agree with your take on what requirements it imposes as-written.

> I don't think you could sincerely argue that this definition intends to allow the compiler to totally rewrite your code because of one guaranteed UB detected on line 5,

I'm not sure if you're exaggerating ("totally"?), being sloppy, or misunderstanding, or if you actually mean this literally, but I already don't believe it does that, and I have never seen any compiler interpret it that way either. Sorry, but you're going to have to be more precise and pedantic here so you actually have something realistic to argue against. Right now it looks like you have an impression of UB that doesn't match reality.