Re: Looking for new language features (re-elaboration)

"Joachim Durchholz" <joachim_d@gmx.de>
21 Sep 2000 18:11:13 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[5 earlier articles]
Re: Looking for new language features (re-elaboration) brangdon@cix.compulink.co.uk (2000-09-15)
Re: Looking for new language features (re-elaboration) joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2000-09-17)
Re: Looking for new language features (re-elaboration) joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2000-09-17)
Re: Looking for new language features (re-elaboration) vbdis@aol.com (2000-09-17)
Re: Looking for new language features (re-elaboration) Martin.Ward@durham.ac.uk (2000-09-21)
Re: Looking for new language features (re-elaboration) genew@shuswap.net (2000-09-21)
Re: Looking for new language features (re-elaboration) joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2000-09-21)
Re: Looking for new language features (re-elaboration) etoffi@bigfoot.com (2000-09-21)
Re: Looking for new language features (re-elaboration) rhyde@cs.ucr.edu (Randall Hyde) (2000-09-23)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Joachim Durchholz" <joachim_d@gmx.de>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 21 Sep 2000 18:11:13 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 00-08-130 00-09-048 00-09-075 00-09-086 00-09-096 00-09-133
Keywords: design, functional

> [I'd like a language that could compile the assertions so I don't have
> to write the code. -John]


These languages actually exist: they're called functional languages.
The body of a routine in a functional language is essentially the
function's postconditions.
I'm not sure about the preconditions. The compiler cannot really infer
them (decidability issues), and I'm not sure what the functional camp
assumes is the "right answer" to 'fac (-1)' or '1/0'.


Regards,
Joachim

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.