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-Thread: 103376,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Thread: 101deb,15c6ed4b761968e6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid1094ba,gid101deb,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!b680011b!not-for-mail
From: Dick Hendrickson <dick.hendrickson@att.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US;
 rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1
Subject: Re: Ada vs Fortran for scientific applications
References: <mubcg.13522$fb2.853@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
 <epcs4e.qb8.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <tHkcg.6937$kR6.484@trnddc05>
 <0ugu4e.4i7.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <PkHcg.90575$Fs1.7198@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <To_cg.10095$S7.4017@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <%P_cg.155733$eR6.26337@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <6H9dg.10258$S7.9150@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <S8gdg.9145$ix2.6702@trnddc03> <r5id5e2tkjq.fsf@gill.maths.keele.ac.uk>
 <p9udg.10802$S7.1619@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
In-Reply-To: <p9udg.10802$S7.1619@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <hDEdg.100708$Fs1.1432@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: f44383cb5015f6eaa163364cab7bed33
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1148655181
 f44383cb5015f6eaa163364cab7bed33 (Fri, 26 May 2006 14:53:01 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 14:53:01 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 14:53:01 GMT
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4494 comp.lang.fortran:10291
 comp.lang.pl1:1739
Date: 2006-05-26T14:53:01+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>



robin wrote:

> From: "Gareth Owen" <usenet@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk>
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 PM
> 
> 
>>Dan Nagle <dannagle@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>What's the difference between a programmer controlling a check,
>>>and a programmer setting a compiler option?
>>
>>There is a difference between
>>"X is available on every compiler" and "X is part of the language".
>>
>>To most of us, it's a meaningless difference, but it *is* a difference.
> 
> 
> As it's not available on every compiler, there is a difference.
> 
> But, as I pointed out, being part of the language means
> that subscript checking can be applied to an entire program,
> a procedure, a statement, a block of statements, etc.
> 
> 
Not really, if it's "part of the language", then the
language defines where, when, and how it can be applied.
There's no particular reason why a language definition
couldn't specify a global application, or a block-by-block
application of bounds checking, or couldn't limit it only to
statements that have a prime number of keystrokes.  It's a
design choice between need and efficiency.

Dick Hendrickson