On Wed, 26 May 2010, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Wed, 26 May 2010 15:02:50 +0200, <stefan-lucks@see-the.signature> a �crit:
> >Annotations are an addition to the original language. Annotations are
> >typically "hidden" in comments (from the viewpoint of the original
> >language). This is in constrast to contracts defined as a part of the
> >language itself. (Technically, the language with the annotations makes a
> >new language ... but there is a gap between the normal part of the
> >language, and the comment-like annotations.
> This is just notation, no one can infer anything from such a premise.

Notation is not such unimportant. 

And this is a bit more than just notation: You use different *tools* to 
compile the program-while-ignoring-all-annotations and to check the 
additional information provided by the annotations. This means, that 
psychologically the information in the annotations appears to be the "less 
important" stuff. E.g., a badly flawed SPARK program may still be compiled 
by an Ada compiler, but a syntactically incorrect Ada-program will be 
found flawed by the SPARK tools. 

> [...] For perception, this matter, I agree.

See!

-- 
------ Stefan Lucks   --  Bauhaus-University Weimar  --   Germany  ------
               Stefan dot Lucks at uni minus weimar dot de
------  I  love  the  taste  of  Cryptanalysis  in  the  morning!  ------