Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #26310

Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix

Subject Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix
Newsgroups comp.arch.embedded
References (5 earlier) <d9qdnbc6E7VfCEvFnZ2dnUU7-XOdnZ2d@giganews.com> <6n2fdct79h5la6ll3mvunfcsm0h091fv0j@4ax.com> <R6adneq4lKodvEXFnZ2dnUU7-TOdnZ2d@giganews.com> <ob9l8b$h4j$2@dont-email.me> <d9GdnTa0nuCg_UXFnZ2dnUU7-K2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
From Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk>
Message-ID <jDaCA.285646$FF4.12474@fx27.am4> (permalink)
Organization virginmedia.com
Date 2017-03-27 16:57 +0100

Show all headers | View raw

On 27/03/17 01:43, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 00:09:48 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-26, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Changing the behavior of the '[]' operator in native C++ code is a
>>> completely different class of change than changing the behavior of the
>>> '[]' operator in a library.  The first requires a change to the
>>> underlying language definition, while the second is only a change to
>>> the library code.
>>>
>>>
>> In an ideal world, I wouldn't mind seeing the first one become reality
>> either. Yes, it would break some bad code, but that existing code could
>> easily be a CVE just waiting to happen.
>
> I think that would have so many ugly tentacles extending into all parts
> of how C natively handles arrays that it would be a nightmare all around.
>
> Much better to just have people remember that '[]' is inherently unsafe,
> and Pay Attention, imho.

And my, that theory has worked out well in practice, hasn't it. :(

Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Dimension of a matrix Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-03-23 18:17 -0500
  Re: Dimension of a matrix Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-23 23:21 -0700
    Re: Dimension of a matrix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 09:18 +0100
      Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2017-03-24 18:24 +0000
        Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2017-03-24 19:32 -0500
          Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2017-03-25 09:59 +0100
          Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-25 13:08 -0500
        Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-25 01:57 +0100
          Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-25 18:34 +1100
            Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2017-03-26 23:53 +0000
              Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-27 09:51 +0200
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-27 20:19 +1100
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-27 12:17 +0200
          Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-25 09:20 -0700
        Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-03-24 23:14 -0400
          Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2017-03-25 11:07 -0500
            Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-03-26 05:45 -0400
              Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2017-03-26 13:14 +0200
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-26 11:08 -0700
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2017-03-26 20:24 +0200
              Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2017-03-26 15:16 -0500
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2017-03-27 00:09 +0000
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-03-26 19:43 -0500
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-27 16:57 +0100
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2017-03-27 11:53 -0500
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-27 22:04 +0200
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-03-27 18:32 -0500
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-28 11:03 +1100
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-27 22:07 +0100
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-27 23:42 -0700
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-28 09:22 +0200
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-28 00:42 -0700
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-28 09:07 +0100
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-28 19:34 -0500
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2017-03-29 11:39 -0500
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-28 19:29 -0500
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-29 10:31 +0200
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2017-03-30 00:23 +0000
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-29 19:31 -0500
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Phil Martel <pomartel@comcast.net> - 2017-03-30 11:51 -0400
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-30 19:16 -0500
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-31 09:21 +0200
                Re: Type-safety and C++, was: Re: Dimension of a matrix Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-03-28 14:19 -0500
    Re: Dimension of a matrix Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2017-03-24 11:05 -0500
      Re: Dimension of a matrix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 17:33 +0100
        Re: Dimension of a matrix Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2017-03-24 12:09 -0500
      Re: Dimension of a matrix Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-25 13:09 -0500
    Re: Dimension of a matrix Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-25 13:05 -0500
  Re: Dimension of a matrix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 09:20 +0100
    Re: Dimension of a matrix Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-25 13:12 -0500
      Re: Dimension of a matrix Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2017-03-25 20:08 +0100
        Re: Dimension of a matrix Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-25 15:17 -0500
          Re: Dimension of a matrix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-26 17:32 +0200
            Re: Dimension of a matrix Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-26 11:55 -0500
              Re: Dimension of a matrix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-26 21:23 +0200
                Re: Dimension of a matrix Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-29 19:36 -0500
                Re: Dimension of a matrix Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2017-03-30 00:36 +0000
                Re: Dimension of a matrix Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-29 19:55 -0700
                Re: Dimension of a matrix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 09:49 +0200
                Re: Dimension of a matrix Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2017-03-30 18:07 +0000
                Re: Dimension of a matrix David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-30 09:47 +0200
  Re: Dimension of a matrix Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2017-03-25 19:08 +0100
    Re: Dimension of a matrix Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-25 15:21 -0500
      Re: Dimension of a matrix Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2017-03-26 14:43 +0200

csiph-web