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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f039470e8f537101
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-21 19:04:17 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out1.nntp.be!propagator2-sterling!news-in-sterling.nuthinbutnews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny02.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030708 Thunderbird/0.1a
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ariane5 FAQ
References: <mailman.26.1058753354.24167.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <1058799152.775376@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <bfh2gb$eeiv4$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <1058810510.375902@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <bfhaed$e786b$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <1058813341.841940@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <bfhe55$eqglr$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <1058816605.566685@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <bfhjjr$eftm1$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
In-Reply-To: <bfhjjr$eftm1$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <AY0Ta.14787$0F4.7550@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 02:04:16 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.83.157.195
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
X-Trace: nwrdny02.gnilink.net 1058839456 162.83.157.195 (Mon,
 21 Jul 2003 22:04:16 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:04:16 EDT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40599
Date: 2003-07-22T02:04:16+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> Well, one way or another - it did. It did exactly what is was supposed
> to do.

No matter how many times people on this newsgroup repeat this,
it will not become true. The code was written on the assumption
that a certain parameter would never reach a particular value.
Its behavior under the contrary assumption was left unspecified.
It certainly did not do "what it was supposed to do" once the
assumption was violated. The system pretended that a hardware
error had happened.