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,b78c363353551702
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.234.38 with SMTP id ub6mr3566394pbc.2.1340375454065;
        Fri, 22 Jun 2012 07:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni7142pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.teledata-fn.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:30:52 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: about the new Ada 2012 pre/post conditions
References: <jrsjr7$uuo$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <1hgo6aks03zy.by4pq4xbjsgf$.dlg@40tude.net> <jrsmfh$6fq$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <npdjip6ohqlt$.1x6bxc9jsaago$.dlg@40tude.net> <js00co$clj$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1jvy3elqtnd1j.1sjbk32evhp1f$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4fe45ce8$0$9508$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <1v3soeviat3z1.f0iwle9giqwk.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <1v3soeviat3z1.f0iwle9giqwk.dlg@40tude.net>
Message-ID: <4fe4819d$0$9525$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Jun 2012 16:30:53 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 5bc5c55c.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=l=FeNdOHa_CWDmlTRbh@=Iic==]BZ:afN4Fo<]lROoRAnkgeX?EC@@@@eiPY3A=egEnc\616M64>JLh>_cHTX3jM[M`0l[`]d>A
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-06-22T16:30:53+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 22.06.12 14:43, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:54:16 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> 
>> On 22.06.12 09:23, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>> Neither #1 nor #2 is defendable.
>>
>> Maybe dynamic checking is not defendable when the attack is
>> based on some biased, and, frankly, narrow set of assumptions.
> 
> Sure, the most effective defence is just not to take any position. You
> might get exposed otherwise.

Who isn't taking a position?

Sir Tony Hoare back then took the position that Ada would
be far too big. Jean Ichbiah more or less answered in 1984 that
Ada is not to be measured against the capabilities of two guys
sitting in the corner wanting to understand everything about.


> BTW, narrower the set of assumptions is, wider is the context where the
> conclusion stays true.

As context is widened, the set of assumptions being narrowed,
the more specific and less informative the full text.
Context widening forces a general concept such as pre/post
to be specific, which it isn't.

I bet that most car electronics software does assume a flat earth
for velocity vectors.