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: 103376,113cbde0422b98e8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Why no constraint error?
Date: 1997/03/22
Message-ID: <E7GAqz.31K@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 227535435
References: <5gs20s$2g11@prime.imagin.net> <5gs81q$114r@prime.imagin.net>
 <E7EHzv.MHq@world.std.com> <dewar.859021939@merv>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.859021939@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>I was always amazed that Bob could seriously suggest that all assignment
>statements must do range checks. In some cases, especially with arrays
>where you can never prove that elements are uninitialized in practice,
                                               initialized, you mean?
>you can slow things down by a large factor with this decision.

Not sure what you mean, but I'm certainly not suggesting that array
assignment must check each component.  It's perfectly legitimate to copy
an array containing uninitialized scalar values -- it would be wrong
(and slow) to range check them.

- Bob