When I first started programming, any program that took physical input (which had usually been keyed very accurately by reliable young women) had to pass a test.
It was fed its own machine code, backwards. It was expected to reach a normal EOJ, (albeit with a significant output of error messages). That seems like a reasonable standard of reliability. On 6/7/17, Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev via RT <perl6-bugs-follo...@perl.org> wrote: > “The only people I see complaining about it are those who just type it up > randomly to see what it'd do” > > We had a bunch of segfaults and overflows that could only be caused by > people > throwing random stuff into the compiler. And yes, very often we had to go > through this “wait, but normal people will not see this” idea, and in every > case it was fixed in rakudo instead (for example, because this kind of > stuff > makes the language look fragile). > > Let's resolve the issue by adding an error message and not by closing our > eyes > on this. > > On 2017-06-05 03:19:58, c...@zoffix.com wrote: >> FWIW, I rescind all of my previous comments on the matter and now >> think no special casing should be done to error out on ³² or anything >> like that. >> >> The only people I see complaining about it are those who just type it >> up randomly to see what it'd do; i.e. not an issue in real programs. I >> see no sufficient argument to add special casing in code, >> documentation, and tests, without solving any real problems. >
