Re: next "big" language?? (disagree)

[rav@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (++ robin)]

        jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony) writes:

        >In article <4pqsed$a4v@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> rav@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (++           robin) writes:

        >>      >No you are wrong.  Ranges and assertions will let the compiler
        >>      >eliminate these checks.  That is exactly what you wanted.  You don't
        >>      >have a clue.  Why are you posting on this topic when you clearly don't
        >>      >understand any of the principals??
        >>
        >> ---Having a range allows the compiler to produce code
        >> to check that the value of the variable concerned
        >> lies within that range.  Whenever that variable
        >> is assigned a value (including via an input), the
        >> check is performed.
        >>
        >>    Sorry you embarrassed yourself again with this and other
        >> wrong assertions (no pun intended).

        >No, you did.  Again.  But you appear not to care.  The compiler can
        >use ranges at COMPILE TIME to check that bounds are not violated AT
        >COMPILE TIME so that it does not need to produce code to check the
        >variable AT RUNTIME.  It can't do this in every case, but in very many
        >cases it can.

---That's what I already said a couple of posts ago:

        >>  "You can write
        >> a = b - c; or the equivalent do/end.  In either case,
        >> the checks are done by the compiler and/or the object code."

But Jon, you are contradicting yourself, because you then replied
that the checks are not needed:

"No.  Try reading what was said.  The _elimination_ of the checks comes
from the assertions or ranges which are in the language and from which
the compiler can deduce that the checks are not needed.  Subscripting
is basically always eliminated."

        >Jon Anthony
        >Organon Motives, Inc.
        >1 Williston Road, Suite 4
        >Belmont, MA 02178