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: a07f3367d7,43216c2d2bcda533
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Specifying the order of ops on an ADT with aspects
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <4b6aaed4$0$7625$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
  <91ab6070-fc9e-4575-a967-8fe43353ba26@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>
 <alpine.LNX.2.00.1002051642450.24469@Bluewhite64.example.net>
 <b50c0c29-8c28-4e3d-af96-61570e2fc2a6@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 19:34:17 +0100
Message-ID: <1v9rzmqtgr455$.1xm2la9knf3jy$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 05 Feb 2010 19:34:10 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 7982dc39.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=g5Z7^2aWR[YU6b:FjPaGjQA9EHlD;3YcR4Fo<]lROoRQ8kF<OcfhCO[PFeBJlhKn5V[6LHn;2LCV^[<mhadbfdU[:aFD8;l?FRUZbNiT4TMN<Y
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8914
Date: 2010-02-05T19:34:10+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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