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: 103376,86fd56abf3579c34
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 10db24,77f71d0bde4c5bb4
X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public
From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: What good is halting prob?
Date: 1995/04/21
Message-ID: <EACHUS.95Apr21103559@spectre.mitre.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 101370077
references: <3kaksj$iur@isnews.calpoly.edu> <cppD77Ex6.E77@netcom.com>
organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.edu
Date: 1995-04-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <dewar.798271681@gnat> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

 > On the other hand, given a formal definition of the language you
 > are compiling, it is at least conceptually feasible to prove that a
 > compiler gives an error message of *some* kind for any incorrect
 > program.

   Of course, as Robert knows well, if the language is non-trivial,
such a compiler will be guarenteed to give an error message for some
correct programs.

   (This corollary of Godels' proof scares lots of people, but
shouldn't.  A perfectly legitimate example of this sort of thing is
for the compiler to run out of storage, or room in the symbol table,
or whatever.)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...