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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f039470e8f537101
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-22 14:52:48 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!sccrnsc01.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Larry Elmore <ljelmore@comcast.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.4) Gecko/20030714 Debian/1.4-2
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ariane5 FAQ
References: <mailman.26.1058753354.24167.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <1058799152.775376@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <bfh2gb$eeiv4$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <1058810510.375902@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <bfhaed$e786b$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <1058813341.841940@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <bfhe55$eqglr$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <1058816605.566685@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <bfhjjr$eftm1$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <AY0Ta.14787$0F4.7550@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
In-Reply-To: <AY0Ta.14787$0F4.7550@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <PmiTa.119324$ye4.85458@sccrnsc01>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.237.120.43
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-Trace: sccrnsc01 1058910767 12.237.120.43 (Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:52:47 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:52:47 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:52:47 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40674
Date: 2003-07-22T21:52:47+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> 
>> Well, one way or another - it did. It did exactly what is was supposed
>> to do.
> 
> 
> No matter how many times people on this newsgroup repeat this,
> it will not become true. The code was written on the assumption
> that a certain parameter would never reach a particular value.
> Its behavior under the contrary assumption was left unspecified.
> It certainly did not do "what it was supposed to do" once the
> assumption was violated. The system pretended that a hardware
> error had happened.

Hardware failure was considered to be the only way that that parameter 
could go out of range on the Ariane 4. It was a design decision that in 
that case, there was no point in handling that exception in software. It 
was not an oversight. It did what it was supposed to do -- if it was 
flying on an Ariane 4.