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=2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Xref: utzoo comp.lang.ada:3307 comp.lang.c:26239
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!crdgw1!proton!oplinger
From: oplinger@proton.crd.ge.com (B. S. Oplinger)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: problems/risks due to programming language
Message-ID: <5502@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 23 Feb 90 18:55:58 GMT
References: <10811@june.cs.washington.edu% <8126@hubcap.clemson.edu% <10838@june.cs.washington.edu>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Reply-To: oplinger@proton.crd.ge.com (B. S. Oplinger)
Followup-To: comp.lang.ada
Organization: General Electric Corp. R&D, Schenectady, NY
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Consider the following (slightly modified from the example by Scott MacHaffie):

example:
        switch (x) { /* x is a character, for example */
                case '0': 
                        number_of_groups ++;
                case '1': ... case '9':
                        print_digit(x);
                        break;
                case 'a': ... case 'z':
                        print_lowercase(x);
                        break;
        }


In my example, 0 is just like any other number except that it signals
the start of a new group, hence the increment on the number-of-groups
counter.  This is just the problem with the syntax of the C case
(switch) statement. It is designed so that a case may do some work and
then 'share' the work of the following case statement. I will submit
that this general attitude is found throughout C. Ada, although not a
perfect language, is almost always presented with some discussion on
software-engineering. I feel that this help promote good work habits. 

On LINT, I would never program without it (in C). There is no excuse
for today's language running on todays machines (hell, even the PC)
that LINT checking cannot be done during a compile. I believe that it
should also be an option that must be turned off, not on.

various random thoughts from:

brian
oplinger@crd.ge.com

<#include standard.disclaimer>