5 ms·

You are talking about a function (at runtime), not a type, verifying the range. And you can do that in any language, regardless of its stance on typing.

Jtsummers 9y ago
http://www.adaic.org/resources/add_content/standards/05aarm/html/AA-3-5-7.html http://www.adaic.org/resources/add_content/standards/05aarm/... Compile-time and run-time floating point numbers constrained by precision and range. It's been a long time so I'm just going to include the examples in that document: type Coefficient is digits 10 range -1.0 .. 1.0; type Real is digits 8; type Mass is digits 7 range 0.0 .. 1.0E35; subtype Probability is Real range 0.0 .. 1.0; These will be checked (to the limits of the ability of the system) at compile-time, and by default enforced at run-time. You can disable the run-time checks if you want for the sake of performance. The compile-time checks will "fail" to detect things where computations beyond the compiler's ability to reason might produce an invalid value.
- hellofunk 9y ago
  Cool, but I don't know much about Ada, and would like to see an example for a statically-typed "range checker" in a more mainstream language used actively today. C++ templates can do a lot of magical stuff at compile time but such techniques are well beyond the reach of most developers. I can't think of any typed language I've used or seen in active modern professional work where you could validate a value as part of a type at compile time.
  - Jtsummers 9y ago
    Not without extra-compiler tooling like other static analysis tools, you're probably correct. I haven't had a chance to use much Ada, it's always been a pleasure for me to work in because I get to use things like the above to make my code so much clearer.
  - mark-r 9y ago
    Pascal has integer range types, but Pascal hasn't been mainstream for a long time now.
  - Someone 9y ago
    I think you can get quite far in C++ with a class that has a constexpr constructor taking a double that checks for range, and (quite a few) operator overloads that allow one to do the normal operations on such quantities.
  - Too 9y ago
    C# with "code contracts" allows you to annotate function arguments with valid ranges which will be statically checked at compile time. It's quite verbose though. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/debug-trace-profile/code-contracts https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/debug-trac...
LeonidasXIV 9y ago
> And you can do that in any language, regardless of its stance on typing. Yes and no, because nothing prevents you from passing the wrong kind of value in an untyped language unless, well, you check for the runtime type yourself in the function and reject that. And you can only do that at runtime, at which point you'll not be able to immediately see where you're passing in invalid data accidentally unless you hit this exact branch in your code. So actually just the type tagging is quite useful already. Also, it looks like more powerful dependently-typed languages like Idris[0] (and probably also Agda and Coq) can encode this information in the type system. [0]: https://stackoverflow.com/a/28436452 https://stackoverflow.com/a/28436452

Jtsummers 9y ago

http://www.adaic.org/resources/add_content/standards/05aarm/html/AA-3-5-7.html http://www.adaic.org/resources/add_content/standards/05aarm/... Compile-time and run-time floating point numbers constrained by precision and range. It's been a long time so I'm just going to include the examples in that document: type Coefficient is digits 10 range -1.0 .. 1.0; type Real is digits 8; type Mass is digits 7 range 0.0 .. 1.0E35; subtype Probability is Real range 0.0 .. 1.0; These will be checked (to the limits of the ability of the system) at compile-time, and by default enforced at run-time. You can disable the run-time checks if you want for the sake of performance. The compile-time checks will "fail" to detect things where computations beyond the compiler's ability to reason might produce an invalid value.

hellofunk 9y ago
Cool, but I don't know much about Ada, and would like to see an example for a statically-typed "range checker" in a more mainstream language used actively today. C++ templates can do a lot of magical stuff at compile time but such techniques are well beyond the reach of most developers. I can't think of any typed language I've used or seen in active modern professional work where you could validate a value as part of a type at compile time.
- Jtsummers 9y ago
  Not without extra-compiler tooling like other static analysis tools, you're probably correct. I haven't had a chance to use much Ada, it's always been a pleasure for me to work in because I get to use things like the above to make my code so much clearer.
- mark-r 9y ago
  Pascal has integer range types, but Pascal hasn't been mainstream for a long time now.
- Someone 9y ago
  I think you can get quite far in C++ with a class that has a constexpr constructor taking a double that checks for range, and (quite a few) operator overloads that allow one to do the normal operations on such quantities.
- Too 9y ago
  C# with "code contracts" allows you to annotate function arguments with valid ranges which will be statically checked at compile time. It's quite verbose though. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/debug-trace-profile/code-contracts https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/debug-trac...

LeonidasXIV 9y ago

> And you can do that in any language, regardless of its stance on typing. Yes and no, because nothing prevents you from passing the wrong kind of value in an untyped language unless, well, you check for the runtime type yourself in the function and reject that. And you can only do that at runtime, at which point you'll not be able to immediately see where you're passing in invalid data accidentally unless you hit this exact branch in your code. So actually just the type tagging is quite useful already. Also, it looks like more powerful dependently-typed languages like Idris[0] (and probably also Agda and Coq) can encode this information in the type system. [0]: https://stackoverflow.com/a/28436452 https://stackoverflow.com/a/28436452