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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f891f,9d58048b8113c00f
X-Google-Attributes: gidf891f,public
X-Google-Thread: 101deb,b20bb06b63f6e65
X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,9d58048b8113c00f
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 10cc59,9d58048b8113c00f
X-Google-Attributes: gid10cc59,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2e71cf22768a124d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: rav@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (++           robin)
Subject: Re: next "big" language?? (disagree)
Date: 1996/06/13
Message-ID: <4pnskl$epv@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 159916551
references: <4p1l65$35qi@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
 <4p60nk$imd@euas20.eua.ericsson.se> <4p8lmq$oq7@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
 <4pj8p7$h9r@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> <4plegb$ibp@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>
 <4pljv3$oqp@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> <4pm33l$66q@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>
organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.pascal,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada
nntp-posting-user: rav
Date: 1996-06-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


ok@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:

	>rav@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (++           robin) writes:

	>>	>	-- assume an external 
	>>	>	-- function Assertion(Condition: Boolean) return Boolean is
	>>	>	-- begin
	>>	>	--     if not Condition then
	>>	>	--         raise Assertion_Violation;
	>>	>	--     end if;
	>>	>	--     return Condition;
	>>	>	-- end Assertion;

	>>	>	procedure P(X: Natural) is
	>>	>	    Precondition: constant Boolean := Assertion(
	>>	>		X mod 2 = 0
	>>	>	    );
	>>	>	    ...

	>>---Why have 2 lines when 11 will suffice?

	>"--" introduces a comment.

---I think most people know that.

	> The function Assertion is already in a
	>library package (of mine).  I don't write it over and over again.

---Yes, but you had to write it.

   The oppoint is, it's overkill.

	> [nonsense deleted>

	>>---The example was an illustration.  It wasn't a literal
	>>translation of yours.  It wasn't intended to make sense.

	>If it _wasn't_ a translation of mine, what was the point of it?
	>How can you claim that it is easier or better or whatever than the
	>code I showed, unless it accomplishes the same end?

	>In fact, your slip

---FYI, it wasn't a slip.

	>>The original said "something .. like", right?

	> [nonsense deleted]

	>>	> In C, for example, assert()
	>>	>    raises the SIGABRT exception, which may (but need not) be handled
	>>	>    by the program itself.

	>>---Which is the example I originally gave above, for PL/I.

	>No, the example you original gave was a PUT statement inside an IF.

---The example -- which you deleted from your reply -- was:

        >>If it's important that the whereabouts of this test be known,
        >>the programmer can include a statement such as "signal error;"
        >>or "signal condition (xyz);" or "put (' at line ', sourceline );"
        >>along with the put statement. [PL/I example]

---Spot on, no?

	> [nonsense deleted]