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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7e8cebf09cf80560
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!22g2000prx.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How would Ariane 5 have behaved if overflow checking were
 notturned off?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <245205af-c271-4815-b740-152a0e792326@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <a8387564-0835-467d-a461-60a093c38133@k15g2000prk.googlegroups.com>
 <op.vscizsqqlzeukk@jellix.jlfencey.com>
 <4d80b140$0$43832$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <op.vsf7vmtblzeukk@jellix.jlfencey.com>
 <4d810172$0$4954$a8266bb1@postbox2.readnews.com>
 <d6e065fb-7271-42d5-812c-83912c8721a5@n1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <be72bf74-0a79-4bd0-a285-b6d9f6b37669@a11g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
 <4d81273c$0$4910$a8266bb1@postbox2.readnews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 174.28.172.140
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1300311068 19256 127.0.0.1 (16 Mar 2011 21:31:08
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:31:08 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 22g2000prx.googlegroups.com; posting-host=174.28.172.140;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15)
 Gecko/20110303 Firefox/3.6.15 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0E),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18263
Date: 2011-03-16T14:31:08-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mar 16, 3:10=A0pm, Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> wrote:
> On 3/16/2011 5:04 PM, Shark8 wrote:
>
> > "Ignore it and continue operation" is, in a word, WRONG.
>
> I hope this is implemented on the flight software of the
> next airplane you fly on. On the contrary, ignore it and
> continue operation may be exactly the right thing to do,
> because the fault may be absorbed elsewhere and the system
> will continue to carry out its intended purpose.

Allowing some system to take care of it is, by definition,
not 'ignoring' it.

IOW, even in that case you are not absolving the
responsibility to handle the "funny" datum but merely moving
that responsibility to another place.