Re: Ranges and (non)static constraints

["Adam Beneschan" <adam@irvine.com>]

Robert A Duff wrote:

> OK.  I'm sure I will enjoy reading the RM for it someday.
>
> But are you sure you want to define it by what it is NOT,
> rather than what it IS?  ;-)

That would indeed be interesting.  Instead of specifying the correct
syntax for anything, the RM would specify only what constructs are
illegal.  Then any program that doesn't violate one of the RM rules
would be legal by default, and Jeff's compiler would have to figure out
what the program is supposed to do and compile it correctly.  :)

                        -- Adam