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
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!rt.uk.eu.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Text_IO, was: Re: Something I don't understand
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 18:54:17 +0100
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <11rxyo9wyh6j1$.1l44widd296bc.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <4a3e55f6-9f54-4084-9f37-96efd4b0d349@googlegroups.com>
 <ad687a22-84c1-4c7d-bf8d-023fda30d849@googlegroups.com>
 <e7a5d697-12d1-4150-b713-3ce1156f158d@googlegroups.com>
 <0b358700-871b-4603-addd-65e07c7d59e5@googlegroups.com>
 <wcc1tz3al9l.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <ldpv63$vc0$1@dont-email.me>
 <wcca9drdoc3.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <ldt0m5$2ad$1@dont-email.me>
 <bmetfvFp5prU1@mid.individual.net> <ldtjgk$o98$1@dont-email.me>
 <bmf9btFrpu3U1@mid.individual.net> <wccha7u4v92.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <7iyn6lkvmah5.3its3xiwx9xz$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wccbny1zsn6.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: XA3K65GLKzvN7VWdKRRhCQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:18708
Date: 2014-02-20T18:54:17+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:54:37 -0500, Robert A Duff wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> 
>> Yes, they do not count. Constraint_Error is not a failed check, it is a
>> contracted behavior.
> 
> It's usually a bug.  And when I see "warning: C_E will be raised..."
> I am happy for that static check.

I am not.

A proper check would be:

"error: procedure Foo is contracted not to raise C_E, but its declaration
region contains a declaration that raises C_E..."

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