By: Foo_ (foo.delete@this.nomail.com), October 28, 2006 1:19 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Rob Thorpe (rthorpe@realworldtech.com) on 10/26/06 wrote:
---------------------------
>I suppose you could phrase the issue like this:-
>
>* SAFE1 = You can't crash the VM
>* SAFE2 = You can't crash a function in the VM
>* SAFE3 = Data a function call recieves is always consistent
>
>SAFE3 is much harder to define, but I expect you know what I mean: code does what you expect it to do.
Would a message-passing language like Erlang have the right semantics to conform to SAFE3?
---------------------------
>I suppose you could phrase the issue like this:-
>
>* SAFE1 = You can't crash the VM
>* SAFE2 = You can't crash a function in the VM
>* SAFE3 = Data a function call recieves is always consistent
>
>SAFE3 is much harder to define, but I expect you know what I mean: code does what you expect it to do.
Would a message-passing language like Erlang have the right semantics to conform to SAFE3?
