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: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: Ada safety road Was: Which is right ... Date: 1999/06/08 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 487168096 Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) 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> <7jf1ik$8v6$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-06-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar writes: > It is VERY important for Ada programmers to be aware of the > situations which lead to erroneous programs. You can easily > search through the RM to find all such cases. But it's not so easy to search through an Ada program to find all such cases. Some of them are global properties of the program. Of the two problems: programmers not knowing the language, and programmers who do know the language making mistakes anyway, I think the latter is the one to worry about most. The former can be solved by education; the latter has no known (complete) solution. > In fact I will repeat again my thought here. This is a VERY > marginal case of erroneousness. If you want to get into the > business of writing a "checkout" compiler that spends extra > time and space to check for as many erroneous situations as > possible, this is not at the top of the list for cases that > are useful to check! I agree. - Bob -- Change robert to bob to get my real email address. Sorry.