andrel wrote:
> That is a rather useful definition, but it may have to imply that the 
> code that you jump to is not reachable in any other way. Or perhaps that 
> is what you want.

As long as you haven't executed it before you goto it, you're OK. If you 
skip forward over something, then branch back to it, then fall into what 
you've already executed, you'll execute the same bit of code twice. But you 
can't execute it *three* times without branching to something you've already 
executed.

> I seem to remember that type systems had the same complexity as or might 
> even be Turing machines in themselves, but I assume you know better.

It depends on the type system. Some are. Most aren't. I'm talking about the 
ones that aren't. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message