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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,aef01dc1d0a3a8bd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: Dummy
Date: 2000/02/03
Message-ID: <2000Feb3.123806.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 581163515
References: <387b154a.3533365@newsread.albacom.net>
 <3898C380.BC01EC03@earthlink.net> <t7d7qe2xab.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>
 <2000Feb3.103443.1@eisner> <t7zoti1cd7.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>
X-Trace: news.decus.org 949599491 12963 KILGALLEN [216.44.122.34]
Organization: LJK Software
Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-02-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <t7zoti1cd7.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>, Hyman Rosen <hymie@prolifics.com> writes:
> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
>> To me "perfectly safe" does not allow "fail at runtime".
> 
> Nonsense. Ada has very similar situations. For example, suppose you
> have a dispatching function with more than one parameter of the
> controlling type. Ada will conduct a runtime check to make sure that
> all the controlling parameters have the same derived type when the
> call is made.

My comment was about the term "perfectly safe".
Your response was about the capabilities of Ada.
Am I missing the post of a third person who characterized Ada
as "perfectly safe" ?

Certainly Ada is not "perfectly safe", or Spark would not exist.
(I am not claiming that Spark is "perfectly safe".)

> "Perfectly safe" means that either the operation succeeds, or you
> are informed that the operation failed.

I have not read that as a formal definition in Ada books,
nor read it in this newsgroup.  I took it as ordinary use
of English.

Larry Kilgallen