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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-28 20:47:32 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "David Thompson" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++ References: <3b690498.1111845720@news.worldonline.nl> <9kbu15$9bj@augusta.math.psu.edu> <9kbvsr$a02@augusta.math.psu.edu> <3B69DB35.4412459E@home.com> <9kp9n7$ivm$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B73337F.862F8D93@home.com> <9lb7hu$72h$1@norfair.nerim.net> <3B7C6977.3648F061@home.com> <3B7C79FA.89E62321@globetrotter.qc.ca> <3B7C9288.6CD8C288@home.com> <3B7D2033.1C780DF5@home.com> <3B7DFA37.70534817@home.com> Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of service attack. X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 03:47:32 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.89.146.148 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 999056852 12.89.146.148 (Wed, 29 Aug 2001 03:47:32 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 03:47:32 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12543 comp.lang.c++:86347 Date: 2001-08-29T03:47:32+00:00 List-Id: Kaz Kylheku wrote : [ in YA debate about "core language" vs "library " ] ... > Then you are saying that whenever some feature of a language can > be implemented in terms of other features, that feature is not > part of the language. Is this an accurate account ...? > Also, according to the proposition, the while loop must not be part > of the C++ language, because it can be defined as: > > #define while (X) for (;(X);) > Not with a space between the macroname and paramlist. And even fixing that a strictly-conforming program can tell it's #define'd, and it doesn't work if the while condition uses the comma operator (misparsed as a punctuator). You would need something like C99 (or GNU) vararg-macros, plus a feature something like #pragma hiddendefine. Of course if would work if done by compiler (or preprocessor?) magic, being pre-set appropriately in the internal symbol table so that it produces the effect you intended -- but is that really different from a compiler that just parses a while statement and transforms the internal parse tree to be the same as a for statement with only a condition, which sounds to me like a perfectly reasonable implementation technique? -- - David.Thompson 1 now at worldnet.att.net