I don't think that analogy quite fits :) If the 'grunts' aren't doing
their job, then yes - let's blame them. Or at least help them find
ways to do it better.
-- Michael
[Ed. Let's consider this the end of the thread, please. Unless someone
wants to say something that is directly relevant to
Michael Silk wrote:
I don't think that analogy quite fits :) If the 'grunts' aren't doing
their job, then yes - let's blame them. Or at least help them find
ways to do it better.
If they're not doing their job, no need to blame them - they're
critically injured, captured, or dead. ...or in the
Crispin wrote:
Here's an example of a case it cannot prove:
if X then
Y - initial value
endif
...
if X then
Z - Y + 1
endif
The above code is correct in that Y's value is taken only when it has
been initialized. But to prove the code correct, an analyzer would have
to be flow
Crispin Cowan wrote:
Precisely because statically proven array bounds checking is Turing Hard, that
is not how such languages work.
Rather, languages that guarantee array bounds insert dynamic checks on every
array reference, and then use static checking to remove all of the dynamic
checks that
