From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b78c363353551702
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.223.73 with SMTP id qs9mr9567337pbc.7.1341491495120;
        Thu, 05 Jul 2012 05:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni10938pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: about the new Ada 2012 pre/post conditions
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 14:31:39 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <10ktgm7jrm9dw.1bbb23g5d4pet.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <jrsjr7$uuo$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <1hgo6aks03zy.by4pq4xbjsgf$.dlg@40tude.net> <jrsmfh$6fq$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <npdjip6ohqlt$.1x6bxc9jsaago$.dlg@40tude.net> <js00co$clj$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1jvy3elqtnd1j.1sjbk32evhp1f$.dlg@40tude.net> <js2hq5$9fj$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1oih2rok18dmt.avbwrres5k12.dlg@40tude.net> <jsttoc$hc2$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <13hfxjlq0xqtq.x3v8evyf4pku$.dlg@40tude.net> <jt2thn$1hr$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <13p2n1ve6lbrc.yr8d2a5ljm8$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4ff58367$0$6643$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-07-05T14:31:39+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:07:02 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 05.07.12 10:48, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 21:18:24 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>> 
>>> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
>>> news:13hfxjlq0xqtq.x3v8evyf4pku$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 23:51:19 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> Legality has nothing to do with preconditions or postconditions.
>>>>
>>>> => It is OK to violate a "contract" defined by these. Here you are.
>>>
>>> No, it's not OK; that is the crux of our disagreement. You seem to think 
>>> that the only kind of "contract" is some sort of static thing.
>> 
>> Exactly. Because the contract exists *before* any programs implementing it
>> and after them. The contract exists even when there is no such program.
> 
> OK

>> Therefore it cannot depend on the program state.
> 
> The "therefore" does not follow,

It does. States of P do not exist before P, which does not exist before its
contract. ["exists before" is a transitive relation]

> because "it" makes too far reaching
> assumptions, from which, I think, no one suggests your logic does not
> follow.

Can you point these assumptions out?

>> Another way to understand this: a contract describes states of a program.
> 
> That's not a contract.

Not any such thing is a contract. But any contract is such thing.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de