Paul Gilmartin wrote: <begin extract> Plus those that would occur only to someone who was proficient in it. (Or is that what you meant to say?) </end extract>
I said what I meant to say. At least some of the developers of a compiler for language L are usually proficient in it. In my experienced highly nuanced tests of notional 'misuse' of a language by those proficient in it are usually made by the developers of a a compiler for it. (This sort of thing can even, and in my view often does, go too far in the name of 'strong typing'.) What get short shrift are tests of constructs that would never occur to someone who is proficient in language L. Anachronistic criticism of past design decisions is not, of course, what I had in mind. The inventor of the nul-delimited string cannot reasonably be blamed for the misuses of it that hackers now make. Those who continue to externalize them can properly and should be so blamed. We live in an irrevocably changed world. There will be no return to Arcadia. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
