From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,386228a37afe967f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-21 07:39:53 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed2.easynews.com!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!ash.uu.net!spool.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:39:52 -0400 From: Hyman Rosen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030611 Thunderbird/0.1a X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Computer Language Shootout References: <1ec946d1.0307150715.4ba69f85@posting.google.com> <3F149243.80304@attbi.com> <3F15930C.2070907@attbi.com> <87k7aeqfcf.fsf@inf.enst.fr> <3F19E1BB.5000908@attbi.com> <87n0f9poyc.fsf@inf.enst.fr> <3F1A98F4.3090304@attbi.com> <87r84lt987.fsf@inf.enst.fr> <3F1B1AE9.8040409@attbi.com> <87el0kth5w.fsf@inf.enst.fr> In-Reply-To: <87el0kth5w.fsf@inf.enst.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: KBC Financial Products Message-ID: <1058798392.73480@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> Cache-Post-Path: master.nyc.kbcfp.com!unknown@nightcrawler.nyc.kbcfp.com X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.250.10 X-Trace: 1058798392 2095 204.253.250.10 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40555 Date: 2003-07-21T10:39:52-04:00 List-Id: Samuel Tardieu wrote: > Of course. However, I am still waiting to see any implementation of > the proposed function which is neither dangerous (Denial of Service by > feeding a string which is too long) nor inefficient (relying on stack > checks is definitely inefficient), and works without heavy > modifications to compilers (I do not think it is worth adding extra > complexity - and bugs - to the compiler for a convenience function > that can be written easily by the user). I don't think I understand your point. You are saying that such a function is too dangerous and inefficient for compiler implementors to write, but that such a function can be written easily by the user?