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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid1094ba,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news4.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xt-sjc-02!sn-xt-sjc-09!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!nospam
From: nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Bounds Check Overhead
Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 07:44:59 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <1hfzk2u.cyssrf1m3jzt9N%nospam@see.signature>
References: <mubcg.13522$fb2.853@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
 <epcs4e.qb8.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <tHkcg.6937$kR6.484@trnddc05>
 <0ugu4e.4i7.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <PkHcg.90575$Fs1.7198@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <To_cg.10095$S7.4017@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <%P_cg.155733$eR6.26337@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <6H9dg.10258$S7.9150@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <XVadg.76594$_S7.45873@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
 <1hfv5wb.1x4ab1tbdzk7eN%nospam@see.signature>
 <pan.2006.05.25.12.11.52.919554@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <4475DA61.3080001@comcast.net> <m2mzd569l9.fsf@grendel.local>
 <44762F55.4050106@cits1.stanford.edu> <87hd3d1472.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <3cBdg.6255$oa3.2407@trnddc08>
 <SuEdg.167361$eR6.86840@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <e574mu$rrj$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu> <87ac9420s5.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <2006052614490816807-gsande@worldnetattnet>
 <z9zsec06oirx.4jmtrfo8pysg$.dlg@40tude.net>
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.7 (Mac OS X version 10.4.4)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4543 comp.lang.fortran:10356
Date: 2006-05-27T07:44:59-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:

> Well, maybe Ada and Fortran share some things, but not the design
> philosophy. Ada standard actually starts with a classification of error:
> 
> 1. Errors that are required to be detected no later than at compile time
> 2. Errors that are required  to be detected at run-time
> 3. Bounded errors which detection isn't required, but the effect is bounded
> 4. Erroneous execution, unbounded effect
> 
> The design decisions made in Ada are always in favor of 1, maybe at the
> cost of some idioms. So in Ada modifying the index of a loop isn't a
> "bounded error" as it seems to be in Fortran, it is a compile-time error.

In that classification scheme, I'd put modifying the index of a loop as
a 4 in Fortran, if I understand the categories correctly. Almost
anything can happen in the Fortran case in theory.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain