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,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!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: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:41:21 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1002081032160.8206@Bluewhite64.example.net>
References: <4b6aaed4$0$7625$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
  <91ab6070-fc9e-4575-a967-8fe43353ba26@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>
 <alpine.LNX.2.00.1002051642450.24469@Bluewhite64.example.net>
 <b50c0c29-8c28-4e3d-af96-61570e2fc2a6@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <1v9rzmqtgr455$.1xm2la9knf3jy$.dlg@40tude.net>
Reply-To: Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Injection-Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:43:25 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: feeder.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="kheEuXGHhE2Z5eF1gAST+A";
	logging-data="28890"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+7GasnjL2rqPgrD74ILda6KLdKcikwhITcvTGt2flkUQ=="
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23)
In-Reply-To: <1v9rzmqtgr455$.1xm2la9knf3jy$.dlg@40tude.net>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Y0iGXMefQ2LimbjZ48znC5aItIc=
X-X-Sender: Colin_Paul@Bluewhite64.example.net
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8970
Date: 2010-02-08T10:41:21+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 5 Feb 2010, Dmitry A. Kazakov sent:

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"[..]                                                                      |
|                                                                           |
|And my painful experience tells me that no check is optional. There is     |
|either one or none. I bet that any suppressed check will eventually fail in|
|the production code [*].                                                   |
|                                                                           |
|------------------                                                         |
|* Unless you do things like code coverage etc, but these would eliminate   |
|the very need to check something that you already proved to hold."         |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

J. Fleuriot (
WWW.inf.Ed.ac.UK/people/staff/Jacques_Fleuriot.html
) asserted on January 24th, 2008:
"[..] there's no such thing as one hundred per cent guarantees [..]"