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: a07f3367d7,b78c363353551702
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.223.40 with SMTP id qr8mr12744045pbc.0.1340619059273;
        Mon, 25 Jun 2012 03:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni17800pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!feeder.erje.net!news.internetdienste.de!news.tu-darmstadt.de!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:10:55 +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> <js2hq5$9fj$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1oih2rok18dmt.avbwrres5k12.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4fe59ea0$0$9502$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <1mkp7fzlk1b0y.1ueinfjn48fcy$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4fe72b6b$0$9504$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <1bbvp3ghpjb5s.1go1s1qvcmagh$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4fe76fad$0$9507$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <9do5r08qryee.neomppj8bcoz.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <9do5r08qryee.neomppj8bcoz.dlg@40tude.net>
Message-ID: <4fe83931$0$6641$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Jun 2012 12:10:57 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 27928bbf.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=5E5gD1=>[KCgj[ZPFj7ehOA9EHlD;3YcB4Fo<]lROoRA8kF<OcfhCOKiVCMLGBglYHnc\616M64>JLh>_cHTX3jMfmFh^T4ZfOO
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-06-25T12:10:57+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 25.06.12 09:48, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:51:08 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> 
>> On 24.06.12 18:06, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:59:55 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> The effect of contract violation is unbounded because not contracted.
>>
>> The effect of a contract violation is part of the contract between
>> client and supplier,
> 
> Like the actual effect of violation of the expected effect of violation of
> the contract.
> 
> Credo quia absurdum

That's what true exceptions always are.