>>>>> "TS" == Tolkin, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TS> OK, My comments below apply to this and Uri's similar comments. TS> I should have said: this infinite loop is easy to detect because: TS> 1. the pattern is constant TS> 2. the data (here $_) is not modified in the loop TS> Both points are obvious to a person. TS> In this simple and important special case TS> it is also easy for most compilers (of languages other TS> than Perl). do tell. i would like to see compilers that detect and warn about infinite loops. TS> In principle quite complex code can be analyzed to determine TS> accurately that the data is not modified. that is done for optimization passes. perl doesn't do that level of optimization. TS> I conclude that the Perl compiler has either TS> * chosen to not do this kind of analysis, or TS> * any such analysis is not connected to the error mechanism. this analysis is akin to what optimizers must do. and if you follow the parrot list you will have seen threads on skipping optimization in cases where side effects (sub/method calls) are found as you can't tell if they will affect the code/data in the section you are optimizing. this analysis can be very complex and slow to run. i know of no compiler that checks for infinite loops (even simple ones) as it is not their baliwick. but bring this up on p5p and see if they listen or laugh at you. :) uri -- Uri Guttman ------ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------- http://www.stemsystems.com --Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding- Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
