Browse thread
[Caml-list] Q: safe language
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ 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 |
Hi, 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.) Ciao, Oliver ------------------- 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