Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!postnews.google.com!j37g2000prh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: lewbloch Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 09:37:21 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: <015aeb15-57db-48ab-9cd4-77f8448b632f@w24g2000yqw.googlegroups.com> <2rydnez7l-H5BYnTnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <4e278a67$0$309$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <1SSVp.69032$_I7.18660@newsfe08.iad> <4e2892f1$0$309$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <1f3f067f-1753-4f6b-876d-19f92059d9b8@e20g2000prf.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 108.89.33.208 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1311439134 12220 127.0.0.1 (23 Jul 2011 16:38:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 16:38:54 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: j37g2000prh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=108.89.33.208; posting-account=CP-lKQoAAAAGtB5diOuGlDQk0jIwmH0T User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Google-Web-Client: true X-Google-Header-Order: ASELCHRU X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/535.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/13.0.782.99 Safari/535.1,gzip(gfe) Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:6464 On Jul 22, 4:16=A0pm, Andreas Leitgeb wrote: > lewbloch wrote: > > On Jul 22, 10:33=A0am, Andreas Leitgeb > > wrote: > >> Patricia Shanahan wrote: > >> [about lack of operator overloading for non-primitive arithmetic types= ] > >>> The problem is not just the keystrokes for typing the expressions. > >>> It is very important to be able to check that a lengthy expression > >>> in a program is a correct translation of the corresponding expression= , > >>> in mathematical notation, in a textbook or paper. > >> Lew? > > Yes? > > So here are arguments (admittedly not mine) that include ("... not just..= .") > but also go beyond the complaint about the number of keystrokes. I was ju= st > wondering, if you had any expert-opinion about them, that you'd care to s= hare. Patricia made excellent points. I don't think I can improve on them. -- Lew