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: 103376,1e5c102037393131
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Marin David Condic <condicma@bogon.pwfl.com>
Subject: Re: Assertions
Date: 1999/05/12
Message-ID: <3739E888.2DC68FC0@pwfl.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 477150840
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: condicma@bogon.pwfl.com
References: <3736D243.1EEBF1AB@globalnet.co.uk> <3736F549.E3DDCDEB@pwfl.com>
 <7h83lc$rd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3739CECA.6A49865B@averstar.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Pratt & Whitney
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: diespammer@pwfl.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-05-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Tucker Taft wrote:
> 
> In any case, here is a strawman:
> 
>    pragma Assert(boolean_expression [, string_expression]);
> 
<snip for brevity>
> 
I can imagine that there are any number of issues which might make it
difficult to write a rigorous definition for the pragma. That said, I
still don't think this is sufficient reason to leave it out of a future
standard. If a large number of compilers are including the pragma
anyway, then inclusion in the standard will at least mean *some* level
of safety as to what the feature means/does.

(Wait a minute! That sounds suspiciously like the argument for
legalizing drugs: "Well kids are going to do it anyway, so at least this
way we can make sure they are getting 'healthy' drugs!" I'm not so sure
I like being on this side of the argument! :-)

Where there are going to be difficult issues, there are always the
weasel words "Implementation Defined". Side effects of the boolean
expression? Implementation Defined! At least you'll have common syntax
and chances are that whatever semantic differences exist in theory, in
practice they will likely be "corner cases" or simply uncommon. (I've
seen endless discussion of parameter passing rules, for example, yet
never once encountered a situation in real-world code where it caused a
problem. Either the code never got ported to a different compiler where
behavior was different or, if it did get ported, the code was structured
in such a way as to not rely on the obscure side-effects. Is the
expression "a tempest in a teapot" relevant here?)

Anyway - I think your definition is fine, as long as the appropriate
"Implementation Defined" weasel words are thrown in when the objections
come up.

MDC
-- 
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic