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 10.68.219.170 with SMTP id pp10mr10465360pbc.1.1340550067913;
        Sun, 24 Jun 2012 08:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni14798pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:59:55 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
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> <js2hq5$9fj$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1oih2rok18dmt.avbwrres5k12.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4fe59ea0$0$9502$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <1mkp7fzlk1b0y.1ueinfjn48fcy$.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <1mkp7fzlk1b0y.1ueinfjn48fcy$.dlg@40tude.net>
Message-ID: <4fe72b6b$0$9504$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Jun 2012 16:59:55 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 836742ab.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=9_eaM^Z5jWcm7>ihJR;B_cic==]BZ:afn4Fo<]lROoRankgeX?EC@@`>UoMUM1ISkoPCY\c7>ejVhUA8SZ>dQUNgIQOkRCbOWln
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-06-24T16:59:55+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 23.06.12 13:01, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> Compare: a contract violation is an *unbounded ERROR*.

Do you mean, I should imagine a contract violation that,
when checks are turned off, result in erroneous execution?