Re: Proposal: pragma Assumption

[Georg Bauhaus <see.reply.to@maps.futureapps.de>]

Stephen Leake wrote:
> Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh.plus-bug.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de> writes:
> 
>> Randy Brukardt wrote:
>>
>>> I don't get it. If you remove the package containing Unimplemented from the 
>>> program (as you should do in this case), any remaining references will be 
>>> caught by the compiler as undefined.
>> I thought that, too, but then considered programmers
>> who wouldn't mind a "workaround":
>>  "If that Simplifying_Assumption package is gone away,
>>   stupid big IT organization, I'll roll my own.
>>   I don't want their configuration handling to affect
>>   my coding right now!"
>> This is not possible to do with a language defined pragma.
> 
> Yes, it is; just change the build script to pass the right compiler
> option.

I can change the integration build script in SCM only in case I have
writing permissions.
OTOH, I can't invent, overload, or override a language
defined pragma;  sure, a malicious programmer (MP?) can still replace
anything with something different. But let's assume programmers who
are interested in doing programming work and who would not work as
moles or as machinators, or as minimum effort maximum garbage coders.

Simplifying_Assumption is a concept. How is it best represented?
I think it is somewhat akin to Ada's case coverage rules. Maybe
going over the top, I could suggest

       assume
          Facts(Information);
       begin
          Machine.Run(Information);
       end assume;

This should express that for the time being, Information covers
many cases, but some cases may not be Facts, expect an exception.
Thus Simplifying_Assumption is promoted to a new reserved word.
However, the purpose of Simplifying_Assumptions is really pragmatic,
geared towards program development by completing the cases, and
instructing the compiler. So a pragma might be fine.