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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1d295367cf0b8c48
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Constantin Porphyrogenete" <excubiteur@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: loop variant in SPARK ADA
Date: 20 Sep 2005 19:49:10 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1127270950.314911.66510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
References: <1127121942.777976.45330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
   <1127236537.057857.142300@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.138.150.241
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1127270955 13723 127.0.0.1 (21 Sep 2005 02:49:15
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 02:49:15 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1127236537.057857.142300@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;
 .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=192.138.150.241;
   posting-account=w2DAMQ0AAADma2X4J8kUp210DanEe1Av
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4972
Date: 2005-09-20T19:49:10-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Thanks for the reply.

The reason for my asking was puzzlement over part of a paragraph
in the book on page 72

"Nevertheless, it is all too easy to
forget to think about the problem of termination and
to conclude that a subprogram is correct just because
all the verification conditions are true."

The impression that I got from the book was that the
point of tools like the Examiner and Simplifier was
precisely to prevent this sort of carelessness.

But I guess it is not to difficult to translate a loop variant
into a loop invariant with the help of some extra variables.

Thanks again for the reply.