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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac9405996d0dcb7f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Amado Alves Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Would You Fly an Airplane with a Linux-Based Control System? Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:15:47 +0000 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <20619edc.0411251028.3e249bf3@posting.google.com> <20619edc.0411261309.220c8ab8@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1101514556 96899 212.85.156.195 (27 Nov 2004 00:15:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:15:56 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <20619edc.0411261309.220c8ab8@posting.google.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Nov 2004 00:15:12.0170 (UTC) FILETIME=[295F58A0:01C4D416] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6533 Date: 2004-11-27T00:15:47+00:00 Mike Silva wrote: > Even accepting your assertion that your hypothesis has not been > disproven, what conclusion do you draw? That deliberately ignoring > out-of-range data (not throwing it away, just ignoring it) will > generally lead to safer systems than dealing with out-of-range data in > some pre-determined way that may not always be the right choice > (especially if the system is mis-used in a manner so that out-of-range > data is suddenly legal)? > > What, again, is your conclusion? I do not draw a general conclusion. I merely point out that it is essential in this particular case to elicit the results of catching vs. not catching the exception, and in that context of using an "exceptional" language vs. an exceptionless one. Be very aware of general conclusions. Again, general expressions like "deliberately ignoring out-of-range data (not throwing it away, just ignoring it)" just make things worse. Out of what range? What is the difference between ignoring and throwing away? If it's data it's processed in some way, cannot really be ignored or thrown away can it?