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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ea5071f634c2ea8b
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.39.100 with SMTP id o4mr3889411pbk.0.1322046252275;
        Wed, 23 Nov 2011 03:04:12 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni8738pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:03:34 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6;
 rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Generic-Package Elaboration Question / Possible GNAT Bug.
References: 
 <7bf9bc32-850a-40c6-9ae2-5254fe220533@f29g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <fe29npj98k5s$.1vzwcva8q22hk.dlg@40tude.net>
 <a5d7119f-7bb7-41e4-8d76-ef08f2d958d9@g7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
 <3snehoqgs8ia$.1nobjem6g6hx6$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wcc1ut14o97.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <128rdz2581345$.c4td19l7qp9z$.dlg@40tude.net> <jaecvt$4tp$1@dont-email.me>
 <16ipwvpdavifr$.17bxf7if7f6kh$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4ecb78b1$0$6643$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <1iofgbqznsviu$.phvidtvxlyj4$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4ecbb96e$0$6581$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <vagow98uvk3n$.198v2ms719j4e$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4ecbdfdb$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <12hfiflyf7pr5$.l3pkpgoid8xt$.dlg@40tude.net> <jah2np$7fp$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1ecuhb030iugz.4q1hfjx371xa.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4ecc393d$0$7625$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <124aq618dmove.884jj64mzm6w$.dlg@40tude.net> <m2mxbn89qz.fsf@pushface.org>
 <1jxx617mf2cqf$.1j076axdq83mr$.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <1jxx617mf2cqf$.1j076axdq83mr$.dlg@40tude.net>
Message-ID: <4eccd308$0$6623$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Nov 2011 12:03:36 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 25cd9d2a.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=:T_\MN7ZUA2Tia]Ho99G50A9EHlD;3Yc24Fo<]lROoR18kF<OcfhCO;TT2:ZAgWN21PCY\c7>ejV81:G4`DH3cX<D7iB48`<Lf8
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19078
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2011-11-23T12:03:36+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 23.11.11 10:56, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> P.S. I hope everybody agrees that dynamic pre-/post-conditions are a part
> of the implementation?

I don't agree. pre/post should specify what the implementation is
supposed to do.

CS trivia that programs behave differently depending on
Assertion_Policy simply do not matter, since the goal is
to arrive at programs whose checks are a consequence of the
program without them: turn assertion checking off and the
program's effect on the environment are the same. "The same"
means: for all relevant precisions of measurement of "same effect".

> The rest is simple. [A comparable case is barriers
> of entries.]

No!  Absolutely incomparable intent!