That was the build up. It led to the following statement and conclusion:<p>&quot;For time when you want to prove abstractly to standard, this doesn&#x27;t seem better than KCC. In short, this feels like Not Invented Here against KCC. Probably unfair characterization, but that&#x27;s what it feels to me.&quot;<p>The obvious interpretation is commenter thinking KCC is better and (see NIH) the OP should&#x27;ve maybe done something with it instead...?<p>&quot; Another comment points out following the standard is good for portabilities sake. Somehow, that all seems obvious to me.&quot;<p>You can follow the standard and be portable if you keep certain parts as options subject to interpretation&#x2F;choice of the implementers. That&#x27;s the so-called undefined behavior mostly.