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,b78c363353551702
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.190.104 with SMTP id gp8mr8054752pbc.4.1340479408643;
        Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni11701pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: about the new Ada 2012 pre/post conditions
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:23:16 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <1v2c5pglhn5u0.awc1gf7nxgnc$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <jrsjr7$uuo$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <1hgo6aks03zy.by4pq4xbjsgf$.dlg@40tude.net> <jrsmfh$6fq$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <npdjip6ohqlt$.1x6bxc9jsaago$.dlg@40tude.net> <js00co$clj$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1jvy3elqtnd1j.1sjbk32evhp1f$.dlg@40tude.net> <js2hq5$9fj$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1oih2rok18dmt.avbwrres5k12.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4fe59ea0$0$9502$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <1mkp7fzlk1b0y.1ueinfjn48fcy$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <cff0acd8-aacc-42d2-8573-09ea34addff1@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: q1gJPV1SC/KP9ydRbYoWiw.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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-06-23T21:23:16+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:46:35 -0700 (PDT), AdaMagica wrote:

> On Saturday, June 23, 2012 1:01:17 PM UTC+2, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> It is OK if New_Line(0) would reboot the computer?
> 
> Really, I do not understand your argument.

It was Georg's argument. I only asked a simple question. Is the behavior of
New_Line defined for the case when the argument is 0, or not? Possible
answer is either "yes" or "no."

> If the argument of New_Line is 0, the procedure is not even called, so its
> body is irrelevant.

If New_Line is not called, why this construct is named "procedure call"?

Let New_Line(1) were inlined would you also argue that its body is not
called?

Would be an implementation checking the constraint within the body illegal?

How do you know if the given piece of code raising an exception does or
does not belong to the body?

How all this could be relevant to the semantics of New_Line and its
contract describing this semantics?

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