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,e7ceb00d83425e3a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!feeder3.cambrium.nl!feeder1.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.141.40.65.MISMATCH!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng1.kpn.DE!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 11:56:33 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <see.reply.to@maps.futureapps.de>
Reply-To: rm.tsho+bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080502)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: rant (Re: Ada featured in Doctor Dobb's Journal )
References: 
 <31a97103-1cbb-47b5-a93c-2a29c206556f@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
 <0d254195-50cb-4bad-b776-8d5c2ab09b6c@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
 <ba91fec6-cfc1-4b48-ad96-fa2a233e66f4@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
 <878wy9uyg9.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <qp0bh8mnjm6g$.16j51cr730963$.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <qp0bh8mnjm6g$.16j51cr730963$.dlg@40tude.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <482eabd1$0$6513$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 May 2008 11:56:33 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 9373f41f.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=Lj<c^]UQTZBE4ZB2flKORA4IUK<Cl32<A4Fo<]lROoRA8kF<OcfhCOK]oK0LQkWN>IPCY\c7>ejVH61:]o7ROBkKNSJ:[Q8KG`D
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:152
Date: 2008-05-17T11:56:33+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:28:06 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> 
>> I strongly prefer compile-time checks over run-time checks,
> 
> Yes, actually contract checks have to be strictly static.

I think there is a HALTing problem here.