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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,cd5c71f09395807a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Assertions in Ada Date: 1997/08/24 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 268372326 References: <33FF9F25.14BA@flash.net> Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-08-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Sat, 23 Aug 1997, Ken Garlington wrote: > > Yes, I think this definitely represents my feelings at the time. > Although I don't think anyone argued _against_ including assertions, > I know I didn't feel that it was something we desperately needed, > particularly vs. pragma Reviewable, etc. (Obviously, if you've > read my Ariane responses, you know I haven't changed my mind > yet, either!) Are the assertions that you're discussing GNAT style pragmas or the more complete Eiffel/Sather set? I think the former are OK, and may become a de-facto standard. While I understand the benefits of the latter, I'm still an agnostic about whether they belong in the language proper, or whether a more complete specification language is really better left as part of a formal development methodology like the B method. So for example if B tools generating Ada were available, the effort of putting a powerful specification tools in the language would have been wasted. I think the decision to do nothing was wise in more ways than one. "When in doubt, leave it out". -- Brian