Matthias Blume wrote: > I agree with Bob Harper about safety being language-specific and all > that. But, with all due respect, I think his characterization of C is > not accurate. [...] > AFAIC, C is C-unsafe by Bob's reasoning.
Agreed. > Of course, C can be made safe quite easily: > > Define a state "undefined" that is considered "safe" and add a > transition to "undefined" wherever necessary. I wouldn't say that was "quite easy" at all. C99 4 #2: # If a "shall" or "shall not" requirement that appears outside of a constraint # is violated, the behavior is undefined. Undefined behavior is otherwise # indicated in this International Standard by the words "undefined behavior" # *or by the omission of any explicit definition of behavior*. [...] In other words, to fix C to be a safe language (compatible with Standard C89 or C99), you first have to resolve all the ambiguities in the standard where the behaviour is *implicitly* undefined. There are a lot of them. -- David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
