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: 103376,63360011f8addace X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-07-21 03:58:23 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newshub.sdsu.edu!newspeer.cts.com!galanthis.cts.com!127.0.0.1.MISMATCH!not-for-mail Sender: kst@king.cts.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: gnat: time-slicing References: <5ee5b646.0207200347.2c61f610@posting.google.com> From: Keith Thompson Date: 21 Jul 2002 03:58:22 -0700 Message-ID: X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.68.192.180 X-Trace: 1027249102 nntp.cts.com 20549 209.68.192.180 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:27281 Date: 2002-07-21T03:58:22-07:00 List-Id: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes: [...] > I actually like the use of the term erroneous as opposed to > undefined, but in any case, the point is that both the terms > undefined in C and erroneous in Ada are technical terms. In both > cases you will get into trouble if you think of them as meaning just > what they mean in English. Hmm. It's difficult to disagree with that, but somehow I manage to do so. 8-)} Yes, it's important to keep in mind that technical terms mean what the standard says they mean, which doesn't necessarily match what they mean in plain English. It's also important for technical terms to be chosen so as to minimize confusion. Nobody is likely to use the phrase "undefined behavior" in anything other than its technical meaning, or something very close to it. The technical meaning happens to be very close to its plain English meaning. Also, it's a phrase that people aren't likely to use accidentally. In contrast, I've heard people refer to Ada programs as "erroneous" when they mean simply that they're incorrect. When we discuss Ada, we have to consciously delete the fairly common word "erroneous" from our vocabularies, and replace it with the technical term. The problem is that the meaning of the technical term diverges too far from the common meaning. Finally, for whatever reason, there's a tendency to use the word "erroneous" by itself, rather than in the phrase "erroneous execution" (which is the technical term defined in the RM). It's common, though incorrect, to say that a piece of code is "erroneous". (I *think* this is partly the fault of imprecision in the Ada 83 RM, but I don't have a copy handy.) -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"