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,ea5071f634c2ea8b X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.35.68 with SMTP id f4mr3447459pbj.5.1322037896730; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 00:44:56 -0800 (PST) Path: lh20ni8387pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Generic-Package Elaboration Question / Possible GNAT Bug. Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:44:40 +0100 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: <124aq618dmove.884jj64mzm6w$.dlg@40tude.net> References: <7bf9bc32-850a-40c6-9ae2-5254fe220533@f29g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <4295dc09-43de-4557-a095-fc108359f27f@y42g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <3snehoqgs8ia$.1nobjem6g6hx6$.dlg@40tude.net> <128rdz2581345$.c4td19l7qp9z$.dlg@40tude.net> <16ipwvpdavifr$.17bxf7if7f6kh$.dlg@40tude.net> <4ecb78b1$0$6643$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <1iofgbqznsviu$.phvidtvxlyj4$.dlg@40tude.net> <4ecbb96e$0$6581$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <4ecbdfdb$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <12hfiflyf7pr5$.l3pkpgoid8xt$.dlg@40tude.net> <1ecuhb030iugz.4q1hfjx371xa.dlg@40tude.net> <4ecc393d$0$7625$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.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 Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19064 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2011-11-23T09:44:40+01:00 List-Id: On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 01:07:25 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > Thus if there is > > procedure ... > with post => postcondition; > > then, yes, it should probably be understood to mean > > procedure ... > with post => raise when not postcondition; > > is there substantial difference in behavior, regarding both that > of the program and that of the programmer? It is lousy language design placing implementation (executable code ensuring the desired behavior, e.g. raising exception) into declarations. The proper one is: procedure ... raise Contraint_Error; -- I don't tell you when and how -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de