Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site shark.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!shark!hutch From: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) Newsgroups: net.unix Subject: Re: Improving C Message-ID: <610@shark.UUCP> Date: Sun, 11-Mar-84 15:24:12 EST Article-I.D.: shark.610 Posted: Sun Mar 11 15:24:12 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 13-Mar-84 20:11:08 EST References: <22000002@ucbcad.UUCP> Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 13What is really wrong with an options switch allowing bounds checking to be included, if the default is to leave it out? I don't recall it being forbidden in the Book. Personally I think that it's just fear of the loss of job security on the part of those objecting. After all, if bounds checking in the development phase were to speed your time-to-running-program, you'd have to do more work. (Oh, before I offend anyone, :-} ) Hutch (in favor of allowing options rather than forbidding them)