Re: Constraint checking of actuals passed to Attributes

[Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <8f9sjg$v3t$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Nope, that's not careful enough reading. The whole point of
> this section is to distinguish abnormal from other cases where
> values may be outside the subtype range. An uninitialized
> value is NOT abnorma. That's at the heart of the discussion

Ahh, I see. It looks like I mentally added an "ab" at an unfortunate
place in the first sentence of section 4.

> Confused? I am not surprised. I find this whole attempt to
> differentiate between these two states pretty ill-defined.

Horribly, yes. I'm not upset or grinding an axe here, just
curious and confused.

I still fail to see the reason for the distinction between a variable
that got hosed because an assignment was aborted and a variable that got
hosed because of an assignment to an inappropriate overlay on a
neighboring object. I can't think of any possible logical distinction,
other than that perhaps someone desparately wanted type-hosing overlays
to not be erronious anymore.

I guess you could say that the difference is that in the first case the
values it managed to put in were probably valid values, and the ones it
didn't were also valid; they just may not be valid together. But in the
second case the value really is completely undefined. But the other
listed "abnormailty" is when you get a garbage value from an imported
subprogram. So so much for that idea.

I mean, what's the difference *how* the garbage was achieved? The affect
of trying to work with it is what matters, and there is no difference I
can see there (no matter how you want to word the standard).

--
T.E.D.

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


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