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,bbbeae4ed07e9626
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Address to function pointer conversion
Date: 1997/06/24
Message-ID: <dewar.867185277@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 252319297
References: <5nrq5h$13cm@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
 <33A1831C.269F@sprintmail.com> <dewar.866334558@merv>
 <33A74403.4B7C@sprintmail.com> <dewar.866852244@merv>
 <mheaney-ya023680002406970020250001@news.ni.net>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-24T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Matthew Heaney asks

<<I'm confused by this answer.  Do you mean

If it is accepted, then it is guaranteed to work.

or do you mean

If it is accepted, it is not guaranteed to work, but is still likely to
work anyway.

When you say "but it will likely will work fine," are you describing the
case when the pragma is accepted?  Or that "it will likely work fine" even
if the pragma isn't accepted?

I'm confused because if the pragma is accepted, "likely is work fine" isn't
how I would like to see it described.  I'd rather you say, "If the pragma
is accepted, then it is guaranteed to work."  Having something compile
without error, and then describing that program as "likely to work" doesn't
give one a high degree of confidence, n'est-ce pas?
>>

Robert replies

The trouble is that "works" here is not well defined, it depends on exactly
what you are doing, for example, if the C program you call raises a signal,
what happens? Not clear. So likely to work is indeed a reasonable way of
saying, on an informal basis, that, based on a best guess of what you
might expect to work, it will work. Other things that might cause trouble
are varargs for example.