🚀 go-pugleaf

According the follow-ups I was a bit vague on some points. This is an
attempt to clarify

>(Using Pascal here)
>   SIA_range : (some interval);      (* Index in the IA *)
>   DIL_range : (some interval);      (* Index in a block *)

I just used Pascal notation, being lazy. Note that Pascal allows
assignments from SIA_range to DIL_range. The intervals are only
there for range checks. As a whole, I have never promoted Pascal
as a "modern" language, and I never will. 

>the compiler should suspect any input.
That is, any input from the programmer, thus, the code itself. Not the
input the programmer gets from *his* users. This input he must validate
and check himself. 

>Not really. Your Russian interpreter doesn't need to have a full notion
>of what you are talking of as long as he gets the words right. But the 
>programmer must. He must understand everything in the specification he has.
>Very often he can't. The text may not be too clear. The one who wrote it 
>may not even know what he really meant, because he knows not what he want.
If one speaker is (deliberatly) vague or ambiguous, the interpreter can
(and should) keep this unclarity in his translation. The programmer
can't. He must find out the facts. Note also that the programmer is 
"translating" a "langauge" on a lower level.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog       
ENEA Data, Stockholm    
sommar@enea.UUCP        
                                                   Post more reviews!