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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,28cd155693714664
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-23 03:29:49 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone2.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamfinder.gnilink.net!nwrddc02.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.1a) Gecko/20020619
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Faulty languages and Liability
References: <mailman.1024283823.12299.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <3dk*NGnrp@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
 <wccelf05m1z.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <%rcR8.6726$cE5.5860@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
 <ohA*orwrp@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <wqhR8.7310$cE5.5201@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 10:29:48 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.83.247.204
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
X-Trace: nwrddc02.gnilink.net 1024828188 162.83.247.204 (Sun,
 23 Jun 2002 06:29:48 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 06:29:48 EDT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26622
Date: 2002-06-23T10:29:48+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
> Only in the same sense as any other compile-time check is. Are you
> counting the compiler as a reader of the code?

You're not telling the compiler anything special, since it knows
you want the object to be aliased when you take a pointer to it.
The reason to declare an object aliased is to inform the human
reader of the code that the object will be accessed through a
pointer.

> Illegal as in 'the compiler will complain if you do it', or illegal as
> in 'random breakage at runtime'?

You're kidding, right? We're talking about C and C++ here.
Random breakage at runtime, of course :-) Actually, the compiler
can't complain, because it doesn't know. I assume a compiler
could complain about obvious cases, but the ones where you change
the constness through a pointer or reference can't be detected
in all cases.