> It is only taking a couple of decades to get there.
I don't know how to break it to you, but the Eighties were 40 years ago :(
In any case I was wondering if Hoare, in addition to bound checkings, felt as strongly about the so called temporal safety, but his words are unambiguous: he is not just rejecting any form of Undefined Behaviour, he wants anything that passes static checking to have useful valid semantics, reminiscent of the "well typed programs can't go wrong" maxim.
A side effect of native language, where a couple doesn't translate to 2, rather some.
That maximum is usually the approach to UB in sane systems languages, literally meaning undefined and that is it, possibly having traps or similar enabled by default.
It isn't the wildcard for any kind of optimisations are allowed, aka "please go wild dear optimiser".
I don't know how to break it to you, but the Eighties were 40 years ago :(
In any case I was wondering if Hoare, in addition to bound checkings, felt as strongly about the so called temporal safety, but his words are unambiguous: he is not just rejecting any form of Undefined Behaviour, he wants anything that passes static checking to have useful valid semantics, reminiscent of the "well typed programs can't go wrong" maxim.