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: fac41,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better!
Date: 1997/01/29
Message-ID: <5conl4$63s$1@news.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 213166350
references: <dewar.854542049@merv> <5cnii3$r9q$1@news.nyu.edu>
 <32EFA614.7C93@netright.com>
organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
newsgroups: 
 comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel
Date: 1997-01-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <32EFA614.7C93@netright.com> david_nospam@netright.com writes:
>Richard Kenner wrote:
>> I think you've given a bad example.  Off-by-one in a loop is often a
>> situation where it will either not work at all or work correctly.
>
 ... example deleted ...

>It seems very likely to me that the above may get missed in testing. 

I said "often", not "always", so a counterexample doesn't disprove
what I said.