[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue SAFE-CODE, version 1
- To: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
- Subject: Re: Issue SAFE-CODE, version 1
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 16 Mar 89 07:02 PST
- Cc: cl-compiler@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, x3j13@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>'s message of 15 Mar 89 14:51 PST
I'm guessing that Moon's objections are more serious than yours.
Frankly, as long as we're playing definitions, I think the problem lies
"Define that, formally, the term ``safe code'' is code refers to any
code in which the OPTIMIZE quality for SAFETY has a value of 3."
I don't think this is a good definition. It is probably good to define that
"any code in which the OPTIMIZE quality for SAFETY has a value 3" is "safe
code", but there is other code that is "safe" too.
It seems pretty awkward to say that:
(locally (declare (optimize (safety 0))) (list 1 2 3))
is "unsafe" or "nonsafe" or "potentially non-safe". We could use the words
that way, but it is pretty confusing.
Counter-proposal: say "declared safe" or "not declared safe", since the
issue is not the (English) safety of the code but the declarations in