From: Mark Lorenzen <mark.lorenzen@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Another question about fixed point types.
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 01:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2010-08-30T01:50:21-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <983b941b-5b57-45fa-922b-b075bd203199@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 5bb7f0f6-b9f1-42ee-a092-44cc781618d0@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
On 29 Aug., 19:50, Phil Thornley <phil.jpthorn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You do have to get them right - OTOH it's always safe to use the
> smallest possible range for the base type as it doesn't matter if you
> prove the checks for a more restricted range.
>
It would be handy if the Examiner would insert safe default base type
assertions just as it inserts default loop invariants.
- Mark L
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-30 8:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-28 22:45 Another question about fixed point types Peter C. Chapin
2010-08-29 6:32 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2010-08-29 11:23 ` Peter C. Chapin
2010-08-29 9:02 ` Phil Thornley
2010-08-29 11:29 ` Peter C. Chapin
2010-08-29 12:31 ` Phil Thornley
2010-08-29 13:49 ` Jeffrey Carter
2010-08-29 14:20 ` Peter C. Chapin
2010-08-29 17:50 ` Phil Thornley
2010-08-29 22:03 ` Peter C. Chapin
2010-08-30 8:50 ` Mark Lorenzen [this message]
2010-08-29 10:24 ` Simon Wright
2010-08-29 14:02 ` Stephen Leake
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox