From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: next "big" language?? (disagree)
Date: 1996/06/24
Date: 1996-06-24T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <EACHUS.96Jun24181517@spectre.mitre.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: dewar.835121649@schonberg
In article <4ql1fv$5ss@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> Dale Stanbrough <dale@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> writes:
> Obviously if there are two concepts, then we should have two names. For
> example (in Ada) we could stick with
> pragma Assert(x);
> for the traditional "please check this really is the case" assertion
> and introduce
> pragma Fact(x);
> (or some other name) for the "this really is true, trust me, and make
> appropriate optimisations" type assertion. Can anyone think of a better
> name (pragma Declare(x) is not available in Ada) than "Fact"?
How about:
pragma Gospel(x);
or pragma I_Tell_You_Three_Times(x);
(after all, Lewis Carroll, under his real? name of Reverend Charles
Dodgson, was a pioneer in Boolean logic... ;-)
but I think:
pragma Assume(x);
captures the intent and meaning perfectly. ;-)
Of course for the belt and suspenders types, we would then need:
pragma Assert_and_then_Assume(x);
to insure that the value of x didn't change between the assertion
check and the compiler assumption. (And of course, the wording is to
make it clear that you can't backpropagate before the pragma.)
--
Robert I. Eachus
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1996-06-24 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 100+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <4p0fdd$4ml@news.atlantic.net>
1996-06-04 0:00 ` next "big" language?? (disagree) Peter Hermann
1996-06-04 0:00 ` The Amorphous Mass
1996-06-04 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-06 0:00 ` Ken Garlington
1996-06-12 0:00 ` Help making ada pretty CSC Trusted Systems Group
1996-06-14 0:00 ` Sandy McPherson
1996-06-19 0:00 ` Ruediger Berlich
1996-06-04 0:00 ` next "big" language?? (disagree) Peter Hermann
1996-06-04 0:00 ` The Amorphous Mass
1996-06-05 0:00 ` Michael David WINIKOFF
1996-06-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-05 0:00 ` Ian Ward
1996-06-05 0:00 ` The Amorphous Mass
1996-06-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-08 0:00 ` The Amorphous Mass
1996-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-05 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-06-05 0:00 ` Ian Ward
1996-06-05 0:00 ` Ian Ward
1996-06-06 0:00 ` Richard Riehle
1996-06-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-10 0:00 ` Richard Riehle
1996-06-07 0:00 ` Richard Riehle
1996-06-08 0:00 ` O'Connor
1996-06-11 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-06-11 0:00 ` James_Rogers
1996-06-11 0:00 ` Kevin J. Weise
1996-06-11 0:00 ` Chris Warack <sys mgr>
1996-06-11 0:00 ` David Weller
1996-06-11 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-06-11 0:00 ` Ian Ward
1996-06-12 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-06-12 0:00 ` Ian Ward
1996-06-11 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
[not found] ` <4p60nk$imd@euas20.eua.ericsson.se>
[not found] ` <4p8lmq$oq7@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
1996-06-11 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-06-11 0:00 ` A. Grant
1996-06-12 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-06-12 0:00 ` A. Grant
1996-06-14 0:00 ` Richard A. O'Keefe
1996-06-12 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-17 0:00 ` A. Grant
1996-06-18 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-24 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus [this message]
1996-06-26 0:00 ` Norman H. Cohen
1996-06-19 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
1996-06-20 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-24 0:00 ` Adam Beneschan
1996-06-24 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough
1996-06-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-24 0:00 ` Assertions (was: Re: next "big" language?? (disagree)) Robert A Duff
1996-06-24 0:00 ` Assertions (a different intent?) Gary McKee
1996-06-24 0:00 ` Assertions (was: Re: next "big" language?? (disagree)) Robert Dewar
1996-06-25 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
[not found] ` <4qrljg$15l8@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-24 0:00 ` next "big" language?? (disagree) Adam Beneschan
1996-06-24 0:00 ` Lars Duening
1996-06-24 0:00 ` hopkinc
1996-06-26 0:00 ` Marc C. Brooks
1996-06-26 0:00 ` Marc C. Brooks
[not found] ` <4qsbm7$r1s@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
1996-06-28 0:00 ` "Assert"? "Assume"? (was: next "big" language?? (disagree)) Alexander Bunkenburg
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Ian Collier
1996-07-01 0:00 ` Cameron Laird
1996-06-24 0:00 ` next "big" language?? (disagree) Keith Thompson
1996-06-25 0:00 ` Simon Read
1996-06-25 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-06-25 0:00 ` Darin Johnson
1996-06-26 0:00 ` A. Grant
1996-06-26 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough
1996-06-25 0:00 ` Brian Nettleton @pulsar
1996-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Fergus Henderson
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-30 0:00 ` Fergus Henderson
1996-06-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-12 0:00 ` Richard A. O'Keefe
1996-06-12 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-06-12 0:00 ` Richard A. O'Keefe
1996-06-13 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-06-13 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-06-12 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
1996-06-14 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
1996-06-15 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
1996-06-18 0:00 ` Adam Beneschan
1996-06-18 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Assertions (an heretic view) Michel Gauthier
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-06-06 0:00 ` next "big" language?? (disagree) Dale Pontius
1996-06-11 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
1996-06-12 0:00 ` Help making ada pretty Pedro de las Heras
1996-06-18 0:00 ` next "big" language?? (disagree) ++ robin
1996-06-07 0:00 Ian Ward
1996-06-08 0:00 ` O'Connor
1996-06-10 0:00 ` Matt Kennel
1996-06-11 0:00 ` Robb Nebbe
1996-06-11 0:00 ` Ian Ward
1996-06-12 0:00 ` Norman H. Cohen
1996-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox