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: 103376,74b55538385b7366 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Hyman Rosen Subject: Re: Ada safety road Was: Which is right ... Date: 1999/06/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 486806029 Sender: hymie@calumny.jyacc.com References: <928083159.436.79@news.remarQ.com> <928174549.336.98@news.remarQ.com> <7iuqkc$ln6$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <928529202.956.79@news.remarQ.com> <928569312.951.42@news.remarQ.com> <7jb1l9$694$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <928703068.617.98@news.remarQ.com> <1999Jun6.181633.1@eisner> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com X-Trace: news.panix.com 928789329 20604 209.49.126.226 (7 Jun 1999 21:02:09 GMT) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070084 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.84) Emacs/20.3 NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Jun 1999 21:02:09 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-06-07T21:02:09+00:00 List-Id: Keith Thompson writes: > This brings up a pet peeve of mine: the word "erroneous" was a poor > choice of terminology. ... > Another good term is "undefined behavior", used by the C and C++ > standards for (essentially) the same concept. If you follow the C++ newsgroups, you'll soon see that the same sort of people who are confused about "erroneous" are confused about "undefined" as well. They tend to mix it up with "implementation-defined", and get quite indignant when no one offers them any sympathy :-) For waht it's worth, I like "erroneous" better - it conveys to me the sense that I have done something wrong, whereas "undefined" conveys to me the sense that the language has forgotten something.