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 10.68.15.105 with SMTP id w9mr11803991pbc.7.1322235941236;
        Fri, 25 Nov 2011 07:45:41 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni16926pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.tu-darmstadt.de!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.ision.net!newsfeed2.easynews.net!ision!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 16:45:39 +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$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <011f483a-e0d7-4475-89e6-506802e88b9b@i6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
 <1u91r9gjh5ep7.5o1zfpumqbfu$.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <1u91r9gjh5ep7.5o1zfpumqbfu$.dlg@40tude.net>
Message-ID: <4ecfb823$0$6565$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Nov 2011 16:45:39 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: bd20ebaa.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=Pbo^n_R8Z@jEB;5>eE0T7mMcF=Q^Z^V3h4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOk5LCKWkH=]Uonc\616M64>jLh>_cHTX3jm9];LQm[NOPj
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19166
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2011-11-25T16:45:39+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 25.11.11 10:47, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> BTW, precondition, postcondition etc were introduced by Dijkstra for
> correctness proofs. It is DbC (TM) which misuses established terms, not me.

 "I thought that testing would be an increasingly ineffective way
of removing  errors from [programs getting larger]. I did not realize
that the success of tests is that they test the programmer,
not the program. (...)
 "My basic mistake was to set up proof in opposition to testing,
where in fact  both of them are valuable and mutually supportive ways
of accumulating evidence of the correctness and serviceability
of programs."
    -- Tony Hoare,
http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2009/10/42360-retrospective-an-axiomatic-basis-for-computer-programming/fulltext