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 10.68.28.135 with SMTP id b7mr3944187pbh.8.1322047562415;
        Wed, 23 Nov 2011 03:26:02 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni8807pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.tu-darmstadt.de!news.internetdienste.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:25:56 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6;
 rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
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>
 <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>
 <4eccd308$0$6623$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <usf5lnuxppfc$.1i7xx1ekcwtk3.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <usf5lnuxppfc$.1i7xx1ekcwtk3.dlg@40tude.net>
Message-ID: <4eccd849$0$6623$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Nov 2011 12:26:01 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 25cd9d2a.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=cn0N;jfem=K74okIm;?DS@A9EHlD;3YcB4Fo<]lROoRA8kF<OcfhCOKTT2:ZAgWN2APCY\c7>ejVH1:G4`DH3cXL7S9K_HMJchN
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:14567
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2011-11-23T12:26:01+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 23.11.11 12:13, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:03:34 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> In that case they cannot be executable.

 From the point of view of CS trivia, they cannot be executable.
But this point of view is not applicable, which---for me---is
the good bit about Assertion_Policy:
The goal is to have program P = program P' where the difference
between P and P' is different Assertion_Policy.  Again, CS trivia
about the general theoretical impossibility of = are too trivial
to be helpful.

Note that DbC emphasizes that assertions do not replace if-statements.