Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 (Fortune 01.1b1); site graffiti.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!shell!graffiti!peter
From: peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: What I miss in micro-processors (fairly long)
Message-ID: <191@graffiti.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 06:58:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: graffiti.191
Posted: Fri Sep 13 06:58:01 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Sep-85 16:18:27 EDT
References: <796@kuling.UUCP> <2580002@csd2.UUCP>
Organization: The Power Elite, Houston, TX
Lines: 18

> 	"...leaving range checks out is rather like practising sailing on
> shore with life belts and then leaving them on shore come the moment.."
> 
> 	Knuth???
> 
> was it not the mariner probe that was lost due to a FORTRAN subscript error?
> 
> I agree with you to a point. For low-risk code leave them out, But for my 
> money I would prefer to see the code in for systems like nuclear plants,
> MX missiles etc..

What should the code do when a range-check occurs? Print out an error message
on ticker-tape & hang? Do nothing? A better analogy, perhaps, would be...

	"...like practicing sailing on shore with a mechanic [safety harness]
and leaving it on shore come the moment..."

...you no longer have anything to attach them to.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com