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 10.68.15.41 with SMTP id u9mr4535061pbc.3.1322059418471;
        Wed, 23 Nov 2011 06:43:38 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni9319pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!news-transit.tcx.org.uk!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Generic-Package Elaboration Question / Possible GNAT Bug.
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:43:17 +0100
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <1837st224x4qf.1eltyp608r49p$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: 
 <7bf9bc32-850a-40c6-9ae2-5254fe220533@f29g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <jaecvt$4tp$1@dont-email.me> <16ipwvpdavifr$.17bxf7if7f6kh$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4ecb78b1$0$6643$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <1iofgbqznsviu$.phvidtvxlyj4$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4ecbb96e$0$6581$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <vagow98uvk3n$.198v2ms719j4e$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4ecbdfdb$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <12hfiflyf7pr5$.l3pkpgoid8xt$.dlg@40tude.net> <jah2np$7fp$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1ecuhb030iugz.4q1hfjx371xa.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4ecc393d$0$7625$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <124aq618dmove.884jj64mzm6w$.dlg@40tude.net> <m2mxbn89qz.fsf@pushface.org>
 <1jxx617mf2cqf$.1j076axdq83mr$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4eccd308$0$6623$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <usf5lnuxppfc$.1i7xx1ekcwtk3.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4eccd849$0$6623$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <1n04ab6q3dg0$.1dthih58wz7sl.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4eccfc43$0$6584$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.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:19087
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2011-11-23T15:43:17+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:59:31 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 23.11.11 14:14, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:25:56 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>> 
>>> On 23.11.11 12:13, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:03:34 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 23.11.11 10:56, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S. I hope everybody agrees that dynamic pre-/post-conditions are a part
>>>>>> of the implementation?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't agree. pre/post should specify what the implementation is
>>>>> supposed to do.
>>>>
>>>> In that case they cannot be executable.
>>>
>>>  From the point of view of CS trivia, they cannot be executable.
>>> But this point of view is not applicable,
>> 
>> I don't see why doing something wrong should make it more applicable. Maybe
>> because the criteria of applicability are distorted as well?
> 
> If it is wrong to assume that a compiler is correct

It is right that the compiler correctly translates your program. Are you
suggesting to break the compiler because it might be already broken?

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