[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | think that it is too relevant for the discussion at hand. Moreover, | Harper talks about a relative concept of "C-safety".
Then, I believe you missed the entire point. First point: "safety" is a *per-language* property. Each language comes with its own notion of safety. ML is ML-safe; C is C-safe; etc. I'm not being facetious; I think this is the core of the confusion. Safety is an internal consistency check on the formal definition of a language. In a sense it is not interesting that a language is safe, precisely because if it weren't, we'd change the language to make sure it is! I regard safety as a tool for the language designer, rather than a criterion with which we can compare languages. [...] | Or are you trying to suggest that we should indeed consider C safe for | the purpose of this discussion? I'm essentially suggesting "silly arguments" (as noted by someone in another message) be left out for the sake of productive conversation. Apparently, I did not communicate that point well enough. -- Gaby -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list