From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC718BCBF for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:24:36 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAKI1EEc+FFrDh2dsb2JhbACBWoxtAQEBCAop X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,270,1188770400"; d="scan'208";a="2961777" Received: from oden.vtab.com ([62.20.90.195]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 13 Oct 2007 12:11:39 +0200 Received: from oden.vtab.com (oden.vtab.com [127.0.0.1]) by oden.vtab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A97626EE4D; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:11:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from virtutech.se (alfredo.hq.vtech [10.0.0.52]) by oden.vtab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC8426EE4C; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:11:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from mattias@localhost) by virtutech.se (8.11.6/8.11.6) id l9DABZA32204; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:11:35 +0200 Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:11:35 +0200 Message-Id: <200710131011.l9DABZA32204@virtutech.se> From: "=?utf-8?b?TWF0dGlhcyBFbmdkZWfDpQ==?= =?utf-8?b?cmQ=?=" To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net Cc: bhurt@janestcapital.com, caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-reply-to: <1192228203.6735.6.camel@rosella.wigram> (message from skaller on Sat, 13 Oct 2007 08:30:03 +1000) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] A labltk book? References: <456409.56385.qm@web54603.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <470FD7B0.1090601@janestcapital.com> <1192228203.6735.6.camel@rosella.wigram> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-Spam: no; 0.00; mattias:01 mattias:01 labltk:01 invariants:01 caml-list:01 target:91 doesn't:12 some:14 language:15 would:18 trends:21 that:23 well:23 well:23 what:24 >Even dumbed down C++ doesn't work well as a target language >due to a large number of 'non-orthogonalities' where some >of the few good invariants C provides are lost. Unfortunately >ISO C99 also trends that way for C as well. Would you mind elaborating? What non-orthogonalities in C++ and C did you have in mind?