From: Bob Duff <bobduff@theworld.com>
Subject: Re: SPARK: missing case value
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:53:49 -0400
Date: 2015-10-09T10:53:49-04:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87pp0o9jpe.fsf@theworld.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 9c3de690-e770-412e-b78f-4d254694ffcc@googlegroups.com
Mark Lorenzen <mark.lorenzen@gmail.com> writes:
> I think it is logical and correct. How would a compiler be able to determine
> the range of E if your precondition was more complex?
Well, the fact that compilers cannot prove ALL truthful things (see
halting problem ;-)) doesn't mean they shouldn't be required to prove
some simple things.
- Bob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-09 14:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-09 11:38 SPARK: missing case value Maciej Sobczak
2015-10-09 12:28 ` Stefan.Lucks
2015-10-09 12:35 ` Mark Lorenzen
2015-10-09 14:53 ` Bob Duff [this message]
2015-10-09 14:39 ` Bob Duff
2015-10-09 15:10 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2015-10-09 15:22 ` Bob Duff
2015-10-09 15:34 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2015-10-09 16:20 ` G.B.
2015-10-09 16:35 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2015-10-09 20:29 ` Georg Bauhaus
2015-10-09 21:01 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2015-10-10 6:44 ` Randy Brukardt
2015-10-10 9:10 ` Georg Bauhaus
2015-10-10 10:00 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2015-10-10 14:19 ` Georg Bauhaus
2015-10-11 9:49 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox