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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,5add429c86f59001
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!backlog2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:22:14 -0500
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:22:11 +0100
From: Tim Rowe <spamtrap@tgrowe.plus.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada vs Eiffel - Ada programmer approach
References: 
 <405b5054-4c8f-4e16-9ea8-503a9b9f976e@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
 	<4A19765C.608@obry.net>
 <8105b65f-4de9-4653-b43a-d55ee33f072d@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
 <4vCdnRo6At8-mIHXnZ2dnUVZ8n2dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <4a1c1aca$0$30229$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
In-Reply-To: <4a1c1aca$0$30229$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <5vKdneqturarnbnXnZ2dnUVZ8n-dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: 
 sv3-tekuAxFrp5zr0E99PaqJsZFX8p3WNZrvHaRT3CbJi/C3UK5zeNvqZ7cmmkhTGKyHwVYtoS7JhPil0KS!swAt1MatX5kDTABCfqIz3Mye4D8/sZvjkAizAHd58ik/2ZweTzSOpsvA9mot33rZMyh6KY/85niC!4wpbjn5QyY0nZqMYFGbM2oVqGgs=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.39
X-Original-Bytes: 1802
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6165
Date: 2009-06-01T17:22:11+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> This "section of code" bit is important; loop invariants and
> variants are part of Eiffel DbC.  Is there a loop variant
> annotation is SPARK (so far, I didn't think there was).

My point is that SPARK doesn't need one for *design* by contract, only 
for *coding* by contract. I can (and do) *design* loop variants and 
invariants without having to actually represent them in the code.