Re: Food for thought
From: Tony Morris (dibblego_at_optusnet.com.au)
Date: 05/31/04
- Previous message: Piotr Galuszkiewicz: "Looking for 6. edition of "Core Java 2 vol.1 - Fundamentals""
- In reply to: Roedy Green: "Re: Food for thought"
- Next in thread: Woebegone: "Re: Food for thought"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 16:42:56 +1000
> This is not the sort of thing people sit up nights worrying about or
> testing. A bug could slip by in a compiler. It this not wise to rely
> on such fine semantics.
>
> For the same reason I suggested people not rely on the semantics of %
> for negative numbers. It is too easily screwed up.
This seems very odd indeed.
If I was going to recommend against such a practice because it may not be
implemented properly (not saying that I would do such a thing), I'd also be
inclined to recommend against all the other language constructs which could
just as easily allow the introduction of a bug in the compiler. This rules
out much of what is we know as "Java". So why rule out the use of the
language because the compiler might contain a bug?
-- Tony Morris (BInfTech, Cert 3 I.T.) Software Engineer (2003 VTR1000F) Sun Certified Programmer for the Java 2 Platform (1.4) Sun Certified Developer for the Java 2 Platform
- Previous message: Piotr Galuszkiewicz: "Looking for 6. edition of "Core Java 2 vol.1 - Fundamentals""
- In reply to: Roedy Green: "Re: Food for thought"
- Next in thread: Woebegone: "Re: Food for thought"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|