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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,43216c2d2bcda533
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!188.40.43.213.MISMATCH!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Specifying the order of ops on an ADT with aspects
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:44:55 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1002051642450.24469@Bluewhite64.example.net>
References: <4b6aaed4$0$7625$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <91ab6070-fc9e-4575-a967-8fe43353ba26@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323328-1617858777-1265388296=:24469"
Injection-Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:46:55 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: feeder.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="kheEuXGHhE2Z5eF1gAST+A";
	logging-data="8746"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18BaWqwG8wH30hUC+d1Kh719OaSxomNv8Q/0BcNnbk2bw=="
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23)
In-Reply-To: 
 <91ab6070-fc9e-4575-a967-8fe43353ba26@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SUtz46U9ltE/wP2+/so9ETKTLBk=
X-X-Sender: Colin_Paul@Bluewhite64.example.net
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8907
Date: 2010-02-05T16:44:55+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--8323328-1617858777-1265388296=:24469
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Hibou57 (Yannick Duch=EAne) sent:

|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"[..]                                                                   |
|                                                                        |
|AI05-0145-2 says                                                        |
|http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/ai05s/ai05-0145-2.txt?rev=3D1.4=
|
|> This is based on the previous alternative AI05-0145-1. The            |
|> Pre/Post aspects are specified using the aspect_specification         |
|> syntax defined in AI05-0183-1. There is no message associated         |
|> with the failure of a precondition or postcondition check: it         |
|> was deemed that these annotations are intended for verification,      |
|> and that for debugging purposes the Assert pragma is sufficient.      |
|The last sentence is the most important for you topic.                  |
|                                                                        |
|All providing I've really understood your question                      |
|                                                                        |
|? intended for verification, and that for debugging purposes the        |
|Assert pragma is sufficient ?                                           |
|                                                                        |
|I was exactly feeling the opposite, [..]                                |
|[..]"                                                                   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|

I agree that no message for a failing precondition or postcondition
check is bad. A newer Ada standard does not necessitate a better
language.
--8323328-1617858777-1265388296=:24469--