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,aef01dc1d0a3a8bd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Hyman Rosen <hymie@prolifics.com>
Subject: Re: Dummy
Date: 2000/02/03
Message-ID: <t7zoti1cd7.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 581134272
Sender: hymie@calumny.jyacc.com
References: <387b154a.3533365@newsread.albacom.net>
 <3898C380.BC01EC03@earthlink.net> <t7d7qe2xab.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>
 <2000Feb3.103443.1@eisner>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 949595163 24614 209.49.126.226 (3 Feb 2000 16:26:03
 GMT)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Feb 2000 16:26:03 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-02-03T16:26:03+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
> To me "perfectly safe" does not allow "fail at runtime".

Nonsense. Ada has very similar situations. For example, suppose you
have a dispatching function with more than one parameter of the
controlling type. Ada will conduct a runtime check to make sure that
all the controlling parameters have the same derived type when the
call is made.

"Perfectly safe" means that either the operation succeeds, or you
are informed that the operation failed.