the five
But, it was anything but C++. Maybe Java.
--
Gabriel Dos Reis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
"Marshall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| David Hopwood wrote:
| >
| > A type system that required an annotation on all subprograms that do not
| > provably terminate, OTOH, would not impact expressiveness at all, and would
| > be very useful.
|
| Interesting. I have always imagined doing this by
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
| > and even C is typesafe unless you use unsafe constructs.
|
| Tautology. Every language is "safe unless you use unsafe constructs".
| (Unfortunately, you can hardly write interesting programs in any safe
| subset of C.)
Fortunately, some people do, as living j
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > |
| > | (Unfortunately, you can hardly write interesting programs in any safe
| > | subset of C.)
| >
| > Fortunately, some people do, as living job.
|
| I don't think so. Maybe the question is what a "safe subset&q
Joachim Durchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| (Yes, I'm being silly. But the point is very serious. Even with less
| silly examples, whether a language or subset is "safe" entirely
| depends on what you define to be "safe", and these definitions tend to
| vary vastly across language commu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| think that it is too relevant for the discussion at hand. Moreover,
| Harper talks about a relative concept of "C-safety".
Then, I believe you missed the entire point.
First point: "safety" is a *per-language* property. Each language
comes with its own notion o
