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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f891f,9d58048b8113c00f
X-Google-Attributes: gidf891f,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,9d58048b8113c00f
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2e71cf22768a124d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 10cc59,9d58048b8113c00f
X-Google-Attributes: gid10cc59,public
From: pontius@twonky.btv.ibm.com (Dale Pontius)
Subject: Re: next "big" language?? (disagree)
Date: 1996/06/06
Message-ID: <4p6r6d$1ad4@mdnews.btv.ibm.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 158786383
references: <4p0fdd$4ml@news.atlantic.net>
organization: IBM Microelectronics Division
newsgroups: comp.lang.pascal,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-06-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <4p37cs$efi@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>,
        rav@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (++           robin) writes:
>
>       >When I decide, as a programmer, that a peculiar type or
>       >variable may have a value in the range from 1 to 9, can you please
>       >explain me why it should be useful to assign a value of 10 or
>       >4711 or -1234?
>
>---Why, someone inevitably decides that the range is going
>to be something different!  Users are apt to change their minds.
>Then someone has to go in and modify the program.  Or, someone
>overlooked a limit, and put in a limit one smaller than that
>actually required.  Again, someone has to go in and find where
>that limit is, and change it.
>
You've made the assumption that the limit was arbitrary. I would
expect that the limit would be put there based on the capabilities
of the code. In that case, exceeding the limit of that variable
is the same as exceeding the capabilities of the code, and may
have unpredicted results.

In that case, if the user wants to change the limits the code had
better be scrubbed to make sure it can handle the new limits.

Obviously the limit must have been intelligently selected in the
first place. But in any case, new expectations call for reexamination
of the program, not "try it and see if it breaks,"  because there's
always the "this time" clause in there.

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)