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: 103376,839916f6ca3b6404
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: not null
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <49ae93bc$0$31872$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
  <KEwrl.43389$EO2.26870@newsfe04.iad>
 <761a4fb8-de91-43b3-b420-55dbc06a61e7@k9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
 <3234a1e2-5f7a-4a26-8b7b-65e3ac67d65f@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <1so528ceh38jq$.uws9l96ursub.dlg@40tude.net>
 <ffa23435-c854-4b6b-811b-b4a8e95a7280@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <11kj0o80w9j7k.15bjz2vugzuvv$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <49b18206$0$31339$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 22:31:42 +0100
Message-ID: <1n77rm7ztnuj8.1mdr1jl2ajg06.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 06 Mar 2009 22:31:44 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 917752b5.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=X?B=8\gRO<>^cW`WBF>WQ<McF=Q^Z^V384Fo<]lROoR1^YC2XCjHcb9cNX<1=;Ii>7DNcfSJ;bb[5IRnRBaCd<M>_=akiYmO_m9GgmiNHUVP`=
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3997
Date: 2009-03-06T22:31:44+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 21:05:25 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> But isn't it really the client that should
> deal with contracts that it violates?

Why should you care about the contract you are going to violate?

The whole idea of "not null" was not to test for it. If you accept testing
then there is no more problem with null.

Obviously there is a multiplying factor N when handling null is moved to N
clients of reusable code.

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