From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phil Edwards To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: type based aliasing again Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: <199909120127.VAA08212@jaj.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-09n/msg00448.html Message-ID: <19990930180200.qfCtnFy0LY1H84HZE3eRx8r-wcgffEo0-jQ8Jb8ulT8@z> > If we use the term "illegal" to describe user code, it carries the > implication that the users who wrote it are evildoers and ought to be > punished. I think we're treating this too seriously for our own good. > That's why there is a GNU convention of describing code which > doesn't follow the language rules as "invalid", not "illegal". So it's not evil (illegal), it's just handicapped or elderly (invalid)? Why not just follow the example of at least one ISO language standard and call it "non-conforming"? Since we're all supposed to be nonconformist GNU rebels anyhow, this will be even less harsh/judgemental on the user, and could even be construed as positive. :-) -- philip.edwards@{sn.wpafb,afrl}.af.mil Targeting & Attack Radar UFOs are real. Air Force Research Labs The Air Force Senior Systems Administrator doesn't exist.