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-Thread: 103376,ac9405996d0dcb7f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!not-for-mail
From: snarflemike@yahoo.com (Mike Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Would You Fly an Airplane with a Linux-Based Control System?
Date: 27 Nov 2004 11:41:39 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <20619edc.0411271141.41ab4828@posting.google.com>
References: <20619edc.0411251028.3e249bf3@posting.google.com>
	<oSFxff11_F@VB1162.spb.edu>
	<mailman.123.1101469316.10401.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
	<20619edc.0411261309.220c8ab8@posting.google.com>
 <mailman.129.1101514556.10401.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.8.58.78
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1101584500 10980 127.0.0.1 (27 Nov 2004 19:41:40
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:41:40 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6559
Date: 2004-11-27T11:41:39-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote in message news:<mailman.129.1101514556.10401.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>...
> Mike Silva wrote:
> > Even accepting your assertion that your hypothesis has not been
> > disproven, what conclusion do you draw?  That deliberately ignoring
> > out-of-range data (not throwing it away, just ignoring it) will
> > generally lead to safer systems than dealing with out-of-range data in
> > some pre-determined way that may not always be the right choice
> > (especially if the system is mis-used in a manner so that out-of-range
> > data is suddenly legal)?
> > 
> > What, again, is your conclusion?
> 
> I do not draw a general conclusion. I merely point out that it is 
> essential in this particular case to elicit the results of catching vs. 
> not catching the exception, and in that context of using an 
> "exceptional" language vs. an exceptionless one. 

But the exception was generated by the hardware.  A non-maskable
exception handler was vectored to.  What would that exception handler
have done differently if an exceptionless language had been used?