|switch statement generation firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-04-06)|
|Re: switch statement generation email@example.com (1994-04-07)|
|switch statement generation firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-04-07)|
|Re: switch statement generation email@example.com (1994-04-10)|
|Re: switch statement generation firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-04-11)|
|Re: switch statement generation email@example.com (1994-04-13)|
|Re: switch statement generation firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-04-14)|
|Re: switch statement generation chase@Think.COM (1994-04-15)|
|From:||email@example.com (Henry Spencer)|
|Organization:||U of Toronto Zoology|
|Date:||Sun, 10 Apr 1994 03:27:09 GMT|
firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael Spertus) writes:
>This is part of a more general notion of assert() where assert means check
>the expression at run time given one kind of compiler behavior e.g.
>unoptimized code generaton. And promice the expression to the optimizer
>given another kind of compiler behavior, e.g. optimized code generation.
These are actually two separate notions, and arguably should not be
bundled into the same construct. I dimly recall at least one language
that had an "assert" statement (meaning "I think this is true here, let me
know if you discover it's not") and an "assume" statement (meaning "this
is true here, for sure, whether it looks that way or not, and you may rely
on it for optimization or assertion checking").
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology, email@example.com utzoo!henry
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.