Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!crackers!m2c!umvlsi!dime!connolly From: connolly@livy.cs.umass.edu (Christopher Connolly) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Static typing, OOP efficiency, and programmer error Summary: Fooling the Devil in the Machine Keywords: cast, void*, correctness Message-ID: <28323@dime.cs.umass.edu> Date: 22 Mar 91 20:19:17 GMT References: <47199@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <27E17FD1.7241@tct.uucp> <28148@dime.cs.umass.edu> <27E8E12E.2D2A@tct.uucp> Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu Reply-To: connolly@livy.cs.umass.edu (Christopher Ian Connolly) Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst Lines: 23 Chip, could we get a little more consistency in the arguments here? In article <27E17FD1.7241@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >I think that the above statement is incorrect. The C++ language is >incapable of compiling a program that results in an object receiving a >message it can't handle. In article <27E8E12E.2D2A@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to connolly@livy.cs.umass.edu (Christopher Ian Connolly): >> bar = (void*) fool_me_twice; >> fool_me_once = (junk*) bar; >Any safety feature can be subverted. All I'm saying is that we should be careful about the claims we make about C++ (or any other language, for that matter). >If you lie to your compiler, you get what you deserve. Clearly. It's likely that many people will "lie" without knowing it, though. >Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT , -C. Connolly