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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, FREEMAIL_REPLYTO,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,28cd155693714664 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-18 06:50:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!iad-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.vt.edu!msunews!not-for-mail From: "Chad R. Meiners" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Faulty languages and Liability Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:49:18 -0400 Organization: Michigan State University Message-ID: References: <3D0DE5E2.5010904@mail.com> <27085883.0206171100.7f6f0c5e@posting.google.com> <3D0E461A.8050207@mail.com> <3D0EBC9F.9040104@mail.com> Reply-To: "Chad R. Meiners" NNTP-Posting-Host: arctic.cse.msu.edu X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26235 Date: 2002-06-18T09:49:18-04:00 List-Id: It is okay to remove a check if you prove that the condition being checked for can never happen. Anyway I don't think it would be criminal to use a language without bounds checking; it would only be negligent. In some cases this negligence would be criminal. "Hyman Rosen" wrote in message news:3D0EBC9F.9040104@mail.com... > If it's "criminal" to use a language without bounds checking, why would it > be OK to remove those checks? It's like removing the safety guard from the > chainsaw as soon as the factory finishes testing it, so that the customer > doesn't get to use it. >