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: 103376,6f248223d81c2ffc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Finalization and Garbage Collection: a hole in the RM? Date: 1996/09/08 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 179273261 references: organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-09-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Franco quoted the reference manual " 11 If the representation of the object does not represent a value of the object's type, the semantics of operations on such representations is implementation-defined, but does not by itself lead to erroneous or unpredictable execution, or to other objects becoming abnormal." In the context of discussing whether bounded errors are predictable or not. But there is a HUGE difference between implementation-defined and a bouned error. If something is implementation defined, then Annex M must specify its behavior, and the behavior is entirely predictable. However, reading paragraphs 9-11 here, I agree there is a lot of confusion over what is a bounded error, and what is implementation defined, and the RM does not seem to recognize the HUGE difference I mention above :-) Bob (Duff), can you sort out the intention here, para 9 seems to say that evaluating the value of an object with an invalid reprsentatoin is a bounded error, and para 11 seems to say that is implementation defined. Even for someone who *is* a native speaker and reader of English, this is completely confusing to me :-)