Re: TI-H: Re: TIB: bug 92

To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: TI-H: Re: TIB: bug 92
From: David Ellsworth <davidell@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 20:36:06 -0800
Delivered-To: ti-hardware-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
In-Reply-To: <352552C2.9E3467A@prairie.lakes.com>
References: <4fadcdb8.3524d2ad@aol.com> <35256F12.127B6115@isd.ingham.k12.mi.us>
Reply-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org

At 09:21 PM 4/3/98 +0000, Richard Piotter wrote:
>It's just a limitation of most programable devices.
>
>It's actualy not a bug! It is to actualy protect you from a REAL crash, by
>warning you you can't do that.

No, it wouldn't crash, nor would it lock up. It would simply have to treat
it as either one or the other, depending on the order in which the tests
are done in the source code parser.

For example, if the parsing algorithm checked for a reserved word first,
and THEN for a variable name if the first check didn't find a match, then
variables having reserved words as names could never be used; they'd just
sit around taking up space. If the checks were done in the opposite order,
it would be even worse: those reserved words would be rendered unusable.

The reason reserved words are forbidden for use as variable names is not to
prevent a "crash", it is to prevent program code from looking ambiguous to
a human.

It's not like one of those sci-fi stories where the hero presents the evil
computer with a paradox, thus causing it to short all its circuits and blow
up. :-) (Which is why one of the major components of true AI would be the
ability to "jump out of the system", rather than going into an endless loop.)

---
David Ellsworth
davidell@earthling.net
IRC: eXocomp
ICQ: 2300673

References:

From:

From:

TI-H: Re: TIB: bug 92

From: Richard Piotter <richfile@prairie.lakes.com>

Prev: Re: TI-H: BOOKS
Next: Re: TI-H: BOOKS
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread