Re: status of PL/I as a viable language

From: "David C. Hoos" <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com>
To: "comp.lang.ada mail to news gateway" <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Subject: Re: status of PL/I as a viable language
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:55:19 -0600
Date: 2003-02-26T14:55:19-06:00	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <mailman.1.1046292936.1343.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org> (raw)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Leake" <Stephen.A.Leake@nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: status of PL/I as a viable language

> Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> writes:
> 
<snip>
> Not quite: it really is a buffer overflow :).
> 
> I suppose the term "buffer overflow" has been overloaded to mean
> "buffer overflow that allows security breaches". But in this context,
> I think the more narrow meaning is appropriate.
Well... if you waant to talk about narrow meanings -- how about
"attempted buffer overflow," which succeeds with C, and fails with Ada.

In my view, the meaning of buffer overflow is when the buffer really
overflows, not when a buffer overflow is attempted.

> 
> -- 
> -- Stephe
> _______________________________________________
> comp.lang.ada mailing list
> comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
> http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada
> 