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 o4mr11018517pbk.0.1322216119092;
        Fri, 25 Nov 2011 02:15:19 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni16079pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!newsfeed.utanet.at!newscore.univie.ac.at!newsfeed01.chello.at!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 11:15:17 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111103 Thunderbird/3.1.16
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$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <011f483a-e0d7-4475-89e6-506802e88b9b@i6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
 <1u91r9gjh5ep7.5o1zfpumqbfu$.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <1u91r9gjh5ep7.5o1zfpumqbfu$.dlg@40tude.net>
Message-ID: <4ecf6ab5$0$7616$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Nov 2011 11:15:17 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab3ceae7.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=ETAe>8KQIiNI7\_^6>c20Jic==]BZ:afN4Fo<]lROoRA<`=YMgDjhgBlY\DnWb[:EBPCY\c7>ejVH9oa7DHGH6KGmE^=\KK?5VO
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:14641
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2011-11-25T11:15:17+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 11/25/11 10:47 AM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> Then a definition must *define* some really existing phenomenon. It is
> pointless to discuss DbC (TM) because it is not something which really
> exists.

ISO/IEC 25436:2006
Also ECMA-367 section 8.9

If Ada's pre/post aspects are close to ECMA-367 section 8.9 and if
the latter is as flawed as the former, if so, then Ada can get it
right now: now is the time to fix bugs in Ada 2012. If there  is
a replacement such as
  F = Prologue o G o Epilogue
that is better than what is currently being added as pre/post aspects,
more correct, less buggy: now's the time.