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: 103376,7fb91ab516cbb7dd
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.129.169 with SMTP id nx9mr6478659pbb.2.1331925476699;
        Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 h9ni33733pbe.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!novia!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!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: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 20:17:37 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6;
 rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: A split between two kinds of Ada programmers?
References: <4f61f7a3$0$6562$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <19696065.1106.1331912526684.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbut24>
In-Reply-To: 
 <19696065.1106.1331912526684.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbut24>
Message-ID: <4f6391d2$0$6557$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Mar 2012 20:17:38 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: ad6f7300.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=J`_l7cNY]TV1`E>oC;JXEZ4IUK<Cl32<Q4Fo<]lROoRQ8kF<OcfhCO[hn@@Y2U:<l^nc\616M64>ZLh>_cHTX3j]>g7Za[AEJK]
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-03-16T20:17:38+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 16.03.12 16:42, yannick.moy wrote:
> Hi Georg, I implemented the -gnatw.t warning and the above patch, so I can tell you what our objective is.
> 
> On Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:07:30 PM UTC+1, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> 
>> Can a project use -gnatw.t when integrating source text written
>> by both kinds of programmers?
> 
> The compiler is there to help honest programmers, not to defeat malicious ones. 

o.K.

> Note that GNAT still warns about statically true or false preconditions and postconditions, for example if you write it "My_True_Constant" or "1 > 0".

O.K., I see that a tool like GNATcheck might perform the task as needed;
I was wondering if there could (or should) be some way of saying

 "really, nothing worthy of a condition has happened"

in words that are less overloaded than a mere True, such as a name or
expression that kind of "honestly" silences the compiler.

Thanks for taking the time to explain!