On 7/15/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Hugh Perkins</b> <<a href="mailto:hughperkins@gmail.com">hughperkins@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<span class="q">On 7/15/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Sebastian Sylvan</b> <<a href="mailto:sebastian.sylvan@gmail.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">sebastian.sylvan@gmail.com
</a>> wrote:</span><div><span class="q"><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
> "unsafe"' here just means direct array indexing. Same as the other<br>> languages. Haskell's 'unsafe' is a little more paranoid that other<br>> languages.</blockquote></span><div><br>
Yes, I was kindof hoping it was something like that. Cool :-)
<br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>Errr ... wait... when you say "direct array indexing", you mean that this does or doesnt continue to do bounds checking on the array access?<br><br>I could imagine that it is "unsafe" simply because direct array indexing prevents mathematically proving that the program wont crash (?), or it could be unsafe in the C++ way, where going off the end of the array corrupts your stack/heap?
<br><br>