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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b78c363353551702
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.220.230 with SMTP id pz6mr15864038pbc.3.1341652494002;
        Sat, 07 Jul 2012 02:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni11086pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: about the new Ada 2012 pre/post conditions
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2012 11:14:43 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <79brat0uiqr5.s237scuc0h68$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <jrsjr7$uuo$1@speranza.aioe.org>
   <1pkfv0tiod3rn$.onx6dmaa3if9$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1206251438390.12735@medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de>
 <1i1mp8xs3vtl2.1oc4m66qtfgzq.dlg@40tude.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1206251734140.12735@medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de>
 <bdpvyb9h7rvt.zbq0kbiq72wj.dlg@40tude.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1206261316320.22921@medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de>
 <xmybo646240w$.13rwa9qwsliyp$.dlg@40tude.net> <jstvu4$jh4$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <a555h2psfssb$.1be3awg0xbewa.dlg@40tude.net> <jt2rjm$vhe$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <33crfw5vkxoh$.kz5mq75s36ee.dlg@40tude.net>
 <43e4637c-3337-4d99-be45-20e054e5a203@googlegroups.com>
 <6ua1uo9zmkjn$.1tmqyzmetx71u$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4ff6969e$0$9514$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <1xkiqefb6watw.10fvt344m3c4g$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4ff6a20a$0$9525$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <1l7pg7ihwb9vn$.kq6k3ypjwl07.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4ff6d51a$0$9514$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <7xnkuta2d94n$.1815f9iev4s7r$.dlg@40tude.net> <jt82pf$kbb$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: 9A8bJrx4NhDLcSmbrb6AdA.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-07-07T11:14:43+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 20:18:31 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
> news:7xnkuta2d94n$.1815f9iev4s7r$.dlg@40tude.net...
> ...
>> But wait a minute and re-read what you wrote. You say that the behaviour of
>> sqrt(-1.0) is basically unspecified. This is where dynamic checks have led
>> you into.
> 
> If you suppress checks, basically the behavior of all programs are 
> unspecified.

There was no *IF*.

> If you *don't* suppress checks, the behavior is well-defined. So what?

That the same function's behavior might be both defined and undefined.
There must be something wrong with that function, the definition of
"behavior", dynamic checks, Georg's statements. The choice is up to the
reader.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de