Re: Specifying the order of ops on an ADT with aspects

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 08:55:31 -0800 (PST), Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne) wrote:

> On 5 f�v, 17:44, Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Glos...@ACM.org>
> wrote:
>> I agree that no message for a failing precondition or postcondition
>> check is bad. A newer Ada standard does not necessitate a better
>> language.
> Don't be sad, pretty sure most of vendors will provide it ;)
> After all, the Ada standard does not specify anything either about
> debugging informations and the like, and indeed, that's not its area.
> This may be the reason why of the actual ARG vote.

Whatever, but I see no need in yet another syntax for run-time assertions.
Statically checked contracts in the form of pre- and postconditions would
be a great language improvement, what we will get obviously to me will not.

And my painful experience tells me that no check is optional. There is
either one or none. I bet that any suppressed check will eventually fail in
the production code [*].

------------------
* Unless you do things like code coverage etc, but these would eliminate
the very need to check something that you already proved to hold.

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