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: 103376,7fb91ab516cbb7dd
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.241.194 with SMTP id wk2mr2504625pbc.8.1331912937831;
        Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 h9ni33173pbe.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "yannick.moy" <yannick.moy@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: A split between two kinds of Ada programmers?
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <19696065.1106.1331912526684.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbut24>
References: <4f61f7a3$0$6562$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.98.77.125
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1331912937 19805 127.0.0.1 (16 Mar 2012 15:48:57
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 15:48:57 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <4f61f7a3$0$6562$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=194.98.77.125;
 posting-account=IylMAAoAAAAOWceJ8n80VbFqxGquV1uU
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-03-16T08:42:06-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hi Georg, I implemented the -gnatw.t warning and the above patch, so I can =
tell you what our objective is.

On Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:07:30 PM UTC+1, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> Can a project use -gnatw.t when integrating source text written
> by both kinds of programmers?

The compiler is there to help honest programmers, not to defeat malicious o=
nes. If you want to guard against misuse of any feature in Ada, best use a =
coding standard checker such as GNATcheck. Here you could have a rule that =
no precondition or postcondition is the static literal "True" or "False".

Note that GNAT still warns about statically true or false preconditions and=
 postconditions, for example if you write it "My_True_Constant" or "1 > 0".

> Remembering Eiffel, it seemed somewhat common to just say the
> equivalent of Post =3D> True when one wanted to defer thinking about
> what the post condition should really be.

For this and other uses, it is not helpful that the compiler warns about=20
   Pre =3D> True
or=20
   Post =3D> False
hence the modification of -gnatw.t that you saw.