From: "Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Subject: Re: Specifying the order of ops on an ADT with aspects
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 08:55:31 -0800 (PST)
Date: 2010-02-05T08:55:31-08:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b50c0c29-8c28-4e3d-af96-61570e2fc2a6@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: alpine.LNX.2.00.1002051642450.24469@Bluewhite64.example.net
On 5 fév, 17:44, Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Glos...@ACM.org>
wrote:
> I agree that no message for a failing precondition or postcondition
> check is bad. A newer Ada standard does not necessitate a better
> language.
Don't be sad, pretty sure most of vendors will provide it ;)
After all, the Ada standard does not specify anything either about
debugging informations and the like, and indeed, that's not its area.
This may be the reason why of the actual ARG vote.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-05 16:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-04 11:26 Specifying the order of ops on an ADT with aspects Georg Bauhaus
2010-02-04 18:07 ` Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)
2010-02-05 16:44 ` Colin Paul Gloster
2010-02-05 16:55 ` Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne) [this message]
2010-02-05 18:34 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2010-02-08 10:41 ` Colin Paul Gloster
2010-02-05 22:15 ` Randy Brukardt
2010-02-05 22:45 ` Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)
2010-02-06 3:35 ` Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox