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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,cd5c71f09395807a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: Assertions in Ada Date: 1997/08/23 Message-ID: <33FF9F25.14BA@flash.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 268271061 References: Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Reply-To: Ken.Garlington@computer.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-08-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Tucker Taft wrote: > > Other stumbling blocks to including it in the Standard: > > The safety-critical community seemed generally to prefer methods > based on separate tools that look from the "outside" to > verify conditions in the code, without adding anything to > the generated code in the target machine. Since we had presumed > the safety-critical community would have been one of the big > supporters of the pragma, this lack of interest was a big blow. Yes, I think this definitely represents my feelings at the time. Although I don't think anyone argued _against_ including assertions, I know I didn't feel that it was something we desperately needed, particularly vs. pragma Reviewable, etc. (Obviously, if you've read my Ariane responses, you know I haven't changed my mind yet, either!) > -- > -Tucker Taft stt@inmet.com http://www.inmet.com/~stt/ > Intermetrics, Inc. Burlington, MA USA