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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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: 1014db,9d58048b8113c00f X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,b20bb06b63f6e65 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 10cc59,9d58048b8113c00f X-Google-Attributes: gid10cc59,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,2e71cf22768a124d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: duening@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (Lars Duening) Subject: Re: next "big" language?? (disagree) Date: 1996/06/24 Message-ID: <4qmulu$nqn@ra.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 161912276 distribution: world references: <4ql1fv$5ss@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> organization: TU Braunschweig, Informatik (Bueltenweg), Germany reply-to: duening@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (Lars Duening) newsgroups: comp.lang.pascal,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-06-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <4ql1fv$5ss@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> Dale Stanbrough writes: >Obviously if there are two concepts, then we should have two names. For >example (in Ada) we could stick with > > pragma Assert(x); > >for the traditional "please check this really is the case" assertion >and introduce > > pragma Fact(x); > >(or some other name) for the "this really is true, trust me, and make >appropriate optimisations" type assertion. Can anyone think of a better >name (pragma Declare(x) is not available in Ada) than "Fact"? pragma Assume(x) ? -- Lars Duening; duening@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de