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 10.68.219.170 with SMTP id pp10mr12456018pbc.1.1340610488760;
        Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni17433pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin3!goblin1!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: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:48:11 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <9do5r08qryee.neomppj8bcoz.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <jrsjr7$uuo$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <1hgo6aks03zy.by4pq4xbjsgf$.dlg@40tude.net> <jrsmfh$6fq$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <npdjip6ohqlt$.1x6bxc9jsaago$.dlg@40tude.net> <js00co$clj$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1jvy3elqtnd1j.1sjbk32evhp1f$.dlg@40tude.net> <js2hq5$9fj$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1oih2rok18dmt.avbwrres5k12.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4fe59ea0$0$9502$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <1mkp7fzlk1b0y.1ueinfjn48fcy$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4fe72b6b$0$9504$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <1bbvp3ghpjb5s.1go1s1qvcmagh$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4fe76fad$0$9507$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.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: 2012-06-25T09:48:11+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:51:08 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 24.06.12 18:06, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:59:55 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>>
>>> On 23.06.12 13:01, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>>> Compare: a contract violation is an *unbounded ERROR*.
>>>
>>> Do you mean, I should imagine a contract violation that,
>>> when checks are turned off, result in erroneous execution?
>>
>> The effect of contract violation is unbounded because not contracted.
> 
> The effect of a contract violation is part of the contract between
> client and supplier,

Like the actual effect of violation of the expected effect of violation of
the contract.

Credo quia absurdum

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