"Strong typing vs. strong testing"

[Vend]

On 30 Set, 03:01, RG <rNOSPA... at flownet.com> wrote:
> In article <lnfwws5b5t.... at nuthaus.mib.org>,
>  Keith Thompson <ks... at mib.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > RG <rNOSPA... at flownet.com> writes:
> > > In article <lnk4m45eu0.... at nuthaus.mib.org>,
> > >  Keith Thompson <ks... at mib.org> wrote:
>
> > >> RG <rNOSPA... at flownet.com> writes:
> > >> > In article
> > >> > <07f75df3-778d-4e3d-8aa0-fbd4bd108... at k22g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
> > >> >  Squeamizh <sque... at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> On Sep 29, 3:02 pm, RG <rNOSPA... at flownet.com> wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >> >> > This is a red herring.  You don't have to invoke run-time input to
> > >> >> > demonstrate bugs in a statically typed language that are not caught
> > >> >> > by
> > >> >> > the compiler.  For example:
>
> > >> >> > [ron at mighty:~]$ cat foo.c
> > >> >> > #include <stdio.h>
>
> > >> >> > int maximum(int a, int b) {
> > >> >> >   return (a > b ? a : b);
>
> > >> >> > }
>
> > >> >> > int foo(int x) { return 9223372036854775807+x; }
>
> > >> >> > int main () {
> > >> >> >   printf("%d\n", maximum(foo(1), 1));
> > >> >> >   return 0;}
>
> > >> >> > [ron at mighty:~]$ gcc -Wall foo.c
> > >> >> > [ron at mighty:~]$ ./a.out
> > >> >> > 1
>
> > >> >> > Even simple arithmetic is Turing-complete, so catching all
> > >> >> > type-related
> > >> >> > errors at compile time would entail solving the halting problem.
>
> > >> >> > rg
>
> > >> >> In short, static typing doesn't solve all conceivable problems.
>
> > >> > More specifically, the claim made above:
>
> > >> >> in C I can have a function maximum(int a, int b) that will always
> > >> >> work. Never blow up, and never give an invalid answer.
>
> > >> > is false.  And it is not necessary to invoke the vagaries of run-time
> > >> > input to demonstrate that it is false.
>
> > >> But the above maximum() function does exactly that.  The program's
> > >> behavior happens to be undefined or implementation-defined for reasons
> > >> unrelated to the maximum() function.
>
> > >> Depending on the range of type int on the given system, either the
> > >> behavior of the addition in foo() is undefined (because it overflows),
> > >> or the implicit conversion of the result to int either yields an
> > >> implementation-defined result or (in C99) raises an
> > >> implementation-defined signal; the latter can lead to undefined
> > >> behavior.
>
> > >> Since 9223372036854775807 is 2**63-1, what *typically* happens is that
> > >> the addition yields the value 0, but the C language doesn't require that
> > >> particular result.  You then call maximum with arguments 0 and 1, and
> > >> it quite correctly returns 1.
>
> > > This all hinges on what you consider to be "a function maximum(int a,
> > > int b) that ... always work[s] ... [and] never give[s] an invalid
> > > answer."
>
> > int maximum(int a, int b) { return a > b ? a : b; }
>
> > >           But if you don't consider an incorrect answer (according to
> > > the rules of arithmetic) to be an invalid answer then the claim becomes
> > > vacuous.  You could simply ignore the arguments and return 0, and that
> > > would meet the criteria.
>
> > I don't believe it's possible in any language to write a maximum()
> > function that returns a correct result *when given incorrect argument
> > values*.
>
> > The program (assuming a typical implementation) calls maximum() with
> > arguments 0 and 1.  maximum() returns 1.  It works.  The problem
> > is elsewhere in the program.
>
> That the problem is "elsewhere in the program" ought to be small
> comfort.  But very well, try this instead:
>
> [ron at mighty:~]$ cat foo.c
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int maximum(int a, int b) { return a > b ? a : b; }
>
> int main() {
>   long x = 8589934592;
>   printf("Max of %ld and 1 is %d\n", x, maximum(x,1));
>   return 0;}
>
> [ron at mighty:~]$ gcc -Wall foo.c
> [ron at mighty:~]$ ./a.out
> Max of 8589934592 and 1 is 1

So the incorrect behavior happens in a case where C doesn't enforce
strict typing rules.