"Strong typing vs. strong testing"

[Seebs]

On 2010-10-01, TheFlyingDutchman <zzbbaadd at aol.com> wrote:
>> > ? ? ? ? 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. If someone
>> > ? ? ? ? tries to call it incorrectly it is a compile error.

>> I would agree that the third sentence is arguably wrong, simply
>> because there's no such thing (outside #error) of a mandate to stop
>> compiling. ?However, my understanding was that the dispute was over
>> the second sentence, and that's certainly correct.

> Why do you consider the term "compile error" a "mandate to stop
> compiling"?

Because that's what people normally mean -- compilation failed.

> What do you say to refer to the situation when you have a
> statement in your program that the compiler finds is an error? And is
> it really material whether the compiler flagged an error and stopped,
> or flagged an error and looked for additional errors???

It might be, because someone might argue that if the compiler will generate
code for a bad construct, it hasn't really produced a "compiler error", just
a warning.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam at seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.