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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ea5071f634c2ea8b
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.0.170 with SMTP id 10mr6519514pbf.2.1322104159016;
        Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:09:19 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni11259pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!g7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Generic-Package Elaboration Question / Possible GNAT Bug.
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:07:55 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <743e83a1-c442-444b-a25a-da706e9cd0f9@g7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <7bf9bc32-850a-40c6-9ae2-5254fe220533@f29g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <wcc4nxzu5gf.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <4295dc09-43de-4557-a095-fc108359f27f@y42g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <fe29npj98k5s$.1vzwcva8q22hk.dlg@40tude.net>
 <a5d7119f-7bb7-41e4-8d76-ef08f2d958d9@g7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
 <3snehoqgs8ia$.1nobjem6g6hx6$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wcc1ut14o97.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <128rdz2581345$.c4td19l7qp9z$.dlg@40tude.net> <jaecvt$4tp$1@dont-email.me>
 <16ipwvpdavifr$.17bxf7if7f6kh$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4ecb78b1$0$6643$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <1iofgbqznsviu$.phvidtvxlyj4$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4ecbb96e$0$6581$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <vagow98uvk3n$.198v2ms719j4e$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.230.151.194
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1322104158 23386 127.0.0.1 (24 Nov 2011 03:09:18
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 03:09:18 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: g7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.230.151.194;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESNKRC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1;
 rv:8.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/8.0,gzip(gfe)
Xref: news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:14586
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2011-11-23T19:07:55-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Nov 22, 10:23=A0am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:02:06 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> >>> I think that, with the exception of compiler-determines-all-of-this,
> >>> the above is a well known characterization of DbC.
>
> >> Not really. DbC is about upfront formalized requirements.
>
> > Not sure, are you speaking about DbC (TM)?
>
> I don't care about trade marks and definitions given by reference
> manuals...


Why not; definitions are essential to understanding each other.
If someone saying 'hammer' means 'shotgun' then what does "I need a
hammer." mean?

Now you could argue that the definition is irrelevant in an Ada forum
because it's from Eiffel's documentation; but a uniform rejection of
all RM definitions is just stupid.

>
> > (b) A debugging ("design", "specification", bla-bla) aid leading
> > =A0 =A0 towards formally proven components where such proofs are possib=
le.
>
> I cannot decipher this, sorry.

What it's saying is: "Design By Contract can aid in debugging and in
formally proving components for which it is possible to formally
prove."