Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] Q: safe language
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Oliver Bandel <oliver@f...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Q: safe language

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Vitaly Lugovsky wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, J Farrand wrote:
> >  Even though you can apply a function to
> > arguments of the wrong type, LISP has well defined behaviour for dealing
> > with this. 
>  And C runtime environment can have a well defined behaviour of what to do 
> with wrong pointers.

Well, C (which means ANSI-C or ISO 9899-C) says nothing about
how your environment is behaving. There are a lot of holes
in the C-standard and these holes are "undefined behaviour",
"implementation dependent" and similar...

But I agree that integer-border-problems in Ocaml
are not very fine. This is a hole in Ocaml.

(But if known, you can handle it; there are much more
 holes in C than in Ocaml.)


To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: