int/long unification hides bugs
kartick_vaddadi at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 27 05:50:58 CEST 2004
Cliff Wells <clifford.wells at comcast.net> wrote in message news:<mailman.5479.1098763359.5135.python-list at python.org>...
> On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 20:37 -0700, kartik wrote:
> > Istvan Albert <ialbert at mailblocks.com> wrote in message news:<Hoydnaa6uYCfjuDcRVn-gA at giganews.com>...
> > > kartik wrote:
> > >
> > > > there seems to be a serious problem with allowing numbers to grow in a
> > > > nearly unbounded manner, as int/long unification does: it hides bugs.
> > >
> > > No it does not.
> > >
> > > Just because a runaway program stops sooner by hitting the
> > > integer limit it does not mean that this having this limit
> > > is a validation method.
> > i didn't say it is. all i say is that it catches bugs - & that's
> > valuable.
> You did say it is. And then you said it again right there.
i think you are getting confused between a mechanism that catches some
bugs & one that can catch all (a validation method)
> > once again, i'm not relying on the integer limit to catch bugs, but
> > i'd much rather have bugs exposed by an overflow exception
> Again that is using the integer limit to catch bugs. Repeated self-
> contradiction does little to bolster your argument.
> > > If you are worried about some numbers growing too much, then
> > > check them yourself, you'll get much better results that way.
> > maybe, why not use an automated test built-in 2 the language? i get it
> > 4 free.
> Because, strangely enough, most people want limitations *removed* from
> the language, not added to it.
limits that catch bugs are good. without *any* limitations, i should
be able to redefine the symbol "4" to mean "8". would you program in
such a language? i wouldn't
>If you are looking for a language with
> arbitrary limits then I think Python isn't quite right for you.
not arbitrary limits, but ones that catch bugs.
More information about the Python-list