From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <01be01c01f24$efa92fa0$89c584c3@cybercable.fr>
From: "Boyd Roberts" <boyd@planete.net>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
References: <200009131811.TAA15840@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>, <019c01c01f08$eecbb1a0$89c584c3@cybercable.fr> <dir*8DiCo@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [9fans] no const?
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:55:06 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0813d97a-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

From: "Theo Honohan" <theoh@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> >hope?  i don't see the point of adding a buncha extra code to the
> >compiler in the 'hope' that things will be better.
> 
> You've got to be trolling, now.  By "the best (protection) that one
> could hope for", DAG obviously means "the best (protection) that is
> obtainable".

if that's what he meant he should have used a more precise construction.

hope and code just don't mix.  like pointer and integer; it might work
most of the time [hope], but it's wrong.

btw:  DAG is pretty funny in oz slang :-)