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 b7mr7782326pbh.8.1322133327887;
        Thu, 24 Nov 2011 03:15:27 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni12510pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.internetdienste.de!news.tu-darmstadt.de!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 12:15:25 +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>
 <wcc4nxzu5gf.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <4295dc09-43de-4557-a095-fc108359f27f@y42g2000yqh.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$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <743e83a1-c442-444b-a25a-da706e9cd0f9@g7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
 <sv6jslo32ppg$.ji4kulr9k5z2$.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <sv6jslo32ppg$.ji4kulr9k5z2$.dlg@40tude.net>
Message-ID: <4ece274e$0$6643$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Nov 2011 12:15:26 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: b607871a.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=J55bkmRUAHZFm0Y?OE@2^XA9EHlD;3YcR4Fo<]lROoRQ8kF<OcfhCO[XG44Z`h@GQ_PCY\c7>ejVXlBkIO^noWbS^f?9WHAII3Q
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:14597
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2011-11-24T12:15:26+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 24.11.11 11:10, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> DbC (TM) considerably deviates from design by contract (common sense), as
> Georg has explained willingly or not. For example disregarding separation
> of interface and implementation is not how things are designed by contract.

The client part of the contract as per DbC (TM) must be read without
referring to implementation. Contractual obligations follow from the
specs only. They consist of preconditions, postconditions, and
type invariant.