Re: Constraint checking of actuals passed to Attributes

[Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <8f93lm$1es$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
> of disk drives. Why? let's read the RM:
>
>    11  If the representation of the object does not represent a
>        value of the object's type, the semantics of operations
>        on such representations is implementation-defined, but
>        does not by itself lead to erroneous or unpredictable
>        execution, or to other objects becoming abnormal.
>
> Unfortunately, implementation-defined is a HUGE hole, through
> which almost any truck can be driven. OK, so it is probably
> not acceptable for an implementation to say:

It does seem that this constrains the possible effects to just the
object in question. To me that means that if I overlay a small object
with a large one, then the compiler has to somehow prevent writes to the
large object from hosing nearby objects. That can't be right.

--
T.E.D.

http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.