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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.66.90.132 with SMTP id bw4mr25158091pab.7.1445245999367;
        Mon, 19 Oct 2015 02:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.182.50.225 with SMTP id f1mr271849obo.11.1445245999326; Mon,
 19 Oct 2015 02:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!kq10no23340312igb.0!news-out.google.com!z4ni25561ign.0!nntp.google.com!kq10no23340308igb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 02:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mvvm5v$1oth$1@adenine.netfront.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=197.254.70.102;
 posting-account=6m7axgkAAADBKh082FfZLdYsJ24CXYi5
NNTP-Posting-Host: 197.254.70.102
References: <c4a5963b-78eb-4b55-83f5-a1de6b10717d@googlegroups.com>
 <4187f92b-770a-4d76-85c0-14f2eba2dee8@googlegroups.com>
 <41a7f7f9-65b4-43a3-b817-f5d9c6a3d015@googlegroups.com>
 <e904f96f-5913-4256-b827-5520767ee19c@googlegroups.com>
 <eafa9031-41df-4a27-ac38-a94ca54e3909@googlegroups.com>
 <mvvm5v$1oth$1@adenine.netfront.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <6001b84e-41a0-4092-bc43-b00f4522d94a@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Issue with SPARK 2014
From: Serge Robyns <serge.robyns@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:13:19 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:27996
Date: 2015-10-19T02:13:19-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> 
> The messages that you get without an explicit loop invariant are because the 
> default loop invariant isn't strong enough for this code.

What is missing to make this one stronger?  Looks like missing a point.

> I don't think that you need more than one Loop_Variant in any loop, this is 
> only needed to prove termination of the loop and just one valid loop variant 
> should be enough.
> 

OK, I capture the the point of the variants part.  Looks like wanted to be too verbose.

Regards,
Serge