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: adaworks@netcom.com (AdaWorks) Subject: Assertions in Ada Date: 1997/08/21 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 268441406 Sender: adaworks@netcom18.netcom.com Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-08-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Subject: Assertions in Ada Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Summary: Keywords: Subject: Assertions in Ada Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Summary: Keywords: I have found the thread on Eiffel versus Ada quite interesting. For a long time I have believed that Ada should include some form of assertion mechanism. I favor the Eiffel words: require, ensure, and invariant. These could be pragmas in the general form, pragma Require(Entity, Data-type, Boolean-Expression) which would add no new syntax to the language. Or they could be in the form of a child package to Ada.Exceptions, also adding no new syntax to the language. In other words, Ada may not need to be redesigned to introduce assertions. Existing language features might work just fine. Much of the argument in favor of Eiffel would simply vanish with the addition of a reliable assertion mechanism in Ada. Richard Riehle -- richard@adaworks.com AdaWorks Software Engineering Suite 30 2555 Park Boulevard Palo Alto, CA 94306 (415) 328-1815 FAX 328-1112