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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.albasani.net!news.teledata-fn.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 10:27:22 +0200 From: Georg Bauhaus User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: a new language, designed for safety ! References: <85ioo9yukk.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <255b51cd-b23f-4413-805a-9fea3c70d8b2@googlegroups.com> <5ebe316d-cd84-40fb-a983-9f953f205fef@googlegroups.com> <2100734262424129975.133931laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> <665318547424646901.823673laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> <53a127a6$0$6658$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <117hu7inluueh.8yl6k6ubrlo5.dlg@40tude.net> <53a15d0a$0$6619$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <1f63h2p39u7oi$.tj7uwc9s8i68.dlg@40tude.net> <53a1a5ab$0$6654$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <11upxu8arp649$.3nmpvazrorn7$.dlg@40tude.net> In-Reply-To: <11upxu8arp649$.3nmpvazrorn7$.dlg@40tude.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <53a3f06c$0$6610$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Jun 2014 10:27:24 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 1406ebff.newsspool4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=9c57\3OW1b0=FQB?mjjV504IUKejV8;Lf:]IGk_S0c2F3H2HQmC; X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:20465 Date: 2014-06-20T10:27:24+02:00 List-Id: On 18/06/14 18:39, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:43:55 +0200, G.B. wrote: > >> On 18.06.14 14:30, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:34:01 +0200, G.B. wrote: >>> >>>> (Pardon? A contract is a manifest piece from the equivalence >>>> class of paper, signed by two parties. >>> >>> And that does not defines the parties it only constrains them, which was >>> the point. >> >> In fact, you declared "contract" to be a >> >> "framework of constraints imposed on the implementations" >> >> which a contract between two legal parties is not. > > Legal parties? What are you talking about? Contracts (the real ones) and liability. Not about the term that has not even been hijacked by the language designers---the LRM has "generic contract model" only---but about those legal terms to which extended assertions (LRM) are a subordinate means to an end: software business, and programers employed. The use of "contract" is not just metaphorical, not just an analogy, not just an abbreviation. I only wanted to point out that the reason of existence of those extended assertions in Ada can be seen as related to liability (via real contracts), not, however, as a definition of "contract". In particular, whenever buyers of software want liability then they are buyers, not logicians. A bargain means application of contract law. If you think that the term "contract" should be defined by your notion of impossibly exhaustive formal semantics, then it will be difficult to see a point beyond artificial and tautologous linguistic confusion. You'd substitute a notion (contract) with some of its remote consequences in Ada (extended assertions). I think it helps make things clearly defined if "contract" continues to stand for what is has been standing for generations, and that words form the LRM in the context of assertions be used for what they cover, not for replacing a notion, "contract" rather than serve it.