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: 103376,6d79efdb8dde2c5a
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!feeder.erje.net!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: SPARK : third example for Roesetta - reviewers welcome
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:08:52 +0200
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen
Message-ID: <8762zalvij.fsf@hugsarin.sparre-andersen.dk>
References: <op.vhguffh3ule2fv@garhos>
	<589eea9a-0b14-4ae5-bf62-9abf4b33e7fb@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
	<op.vhhu72saule2fv@garhos>
	<b7c82424-fbc2-4efa-9c05-f2c402df0a65@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 94.191.136.78.bredband.3.dk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1281953333 15182 94.191.136.78 (16 Aug 2010 10:08:53
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:08:53 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0svPcXJn9oAl6Id08FWvgdDTgWc=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13396
Date: 2010-08-16T12:08:52+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Phil Thornley wrote:
> Yannick Duch�ne wrote:

>> I don't want to introduce user rules at Rosetta, because don't think
>> this is the place for such none-straight-way things.
>
> I agree that introducing different combinations of files to Rosetta
> for different examples could be quite confusing for the casual browser
> of the site.

Yes.

But if user rules is The Right Way(tm) to solve a problem, then user
rules should be included.

> Perhaps we need two different languages: SPARK and SPARK+Proof where
> the SPARK examples just include the (now normal) proof of absence of
> run-time error and the +Proof versions include partial proofs of
> correctness.

I don't think so, but we should put instructions for compiling a SPARK
program with user rules somewhere (easily findable) on the Rosetta code
site.

Greetings,

Jacob
-- 
"This page inadvertently left blank."