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: 2002-07-19 16:47:09 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!howland.erols.net!usc.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: From: Keith Thompson Date: 19 Jul 2002 16:46:58 -0700 Message-ID: X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.68.192.180 X-Trace: 1027122418 nntp.cts.com 320 209.68.192.180 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:27256 Date: 2002-07-19T16:46:58-07:00 List-Id: Robert A Duff writes: [...] > Note that "erroneous" is an Ada technical term. It doesn't mean exactly > the same thing as it does in plain English (unfortunately). Look it up > in the RM, if you like. That's one thing the C standard got right and the Ada standard got wrong. C's term for the same thing is "undefined behavior", which means pretty much what is says in plain English; the standard defines it more precisely, but the definition doesn't conflict with common usage. Ada's term "erroneous" is misleading because the word already has a perfectly good meaning that's much less specific than the meaning the Ada standard assigns to it. On the other hand, of course, there's a lot more "undefined behavior" in C than there is "erroneous execution" in Ada. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"