On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Nicolas Cannasse wrote:

> >  Run C in a bytecode "safe" environment (there are some C implementations
> > with this functionality) - and it will become a "safe language"?
> 
> True.
> If you choose the following definition "safe : which does not fail" then you
> have
> 
> C < "safe" C < Lisp < OCaml
> 
> But you can't ensure the total safety of your program without using a
> theorem prover such as COQ.
> Simple OCaml sample :
> 
> List.hd [];;

 [] is a correct argument for hd, but list (x y) is not a correct when 
you're expecting 3-d vector (x y z). So, well, I don't see the difference
between "safety" and "type safety".


-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners