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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,78447032bdbeb343
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Santiago_Urue=F1a?= <suruena@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Proposal: pragma Assumption
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 00:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <13aa4422-c478-478e-8e33-882508d9d1f8@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
References: <30917be5-1446-417c-8a4e-18b2f9a1f420@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.4.11.35
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1211961528 15285 127.0.0.1 (28 May 2008 07:58:48
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 07:58:48 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com; posting-host=138.4.11.35;
	posting-account=Lcd2wAoAAAADW2SqWO5AWY55Q-jjpVWU
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; es-ES; rv:1.8.1.10)
	Gecko/20071115 Iceweasel/2.0.0.10
 (Debian-2.0.0.10-0etch1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:412
Date: 2008-05-28T00:58:48-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> So the proposal would be adding to the next Ada revision two new
> pragmas:
>
>   pragma Assumption ([Check =3D>] boolean_expression[,
>                      [Message =3D>] string_expression]);
>   pragma Assumption_Policy (policy_identifier);   -- Error, Check
>
I've been thinking more about it, and probably the compilers should be
encouraged to choose a long switch name to reduce the chance of
forgetting to remove that it in the final binary. For example, instead
of (say) "-gnatap", choose something like "--allow-unimplemented-
units".

And maybe the pragma Assumption_Policy is a bad idea for the same
reasons: this pragma has preference over the compiler switches (at
least for gnat in the case of pragma Assert_Policy), so it is very
easy to forget to change the policy from "Check" to "Error"...

--
Santiago Urue=F1a-Pascual
Technical University of Madrid (UPM)