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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6d79efdb8dde2c5a
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Phil Thornley <phil.jpthornley@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: SPARK : third example for Roesetta - reviewers welcome
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <b7c82424-fbc2-4efa-9c05-f2c402df0a65@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
References: <op.vhguffh3ule2fv@garhos>
 <589eea9a-0b14-4ae5-bf62-9abf4b33e7fb@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <op.vhhu72saule2fv@garhos>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.177.171.182
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1281903174 11544 127.0.0.1 (15 Aug 2010 20:12:54
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:12:54 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=80.177.171.182;
 posting-account=Fz1-yAoAAACc1SDCr-Py2qBj8xQ-qC2q
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR
 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13361
Date: 2010-08-15T13:12:54-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 15 Aug, 20:32, Yannick Duch=EAne (Hibou57) <yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr>
wrote:
[...]
> I don't want to introduce user rules at Rosetta, because don't think this
> is the place for such none-straight-way things.

I agree that introducing different combinations of files to Rosetta
for different examples could be quite confusing for the casual browser
of the site.

Perhaps we need two different languages: SPARK and SPARK+Proof where
the SPARK examples just include the (now normal) proof of absence of
run-time error and the +Proof versions include partial proofs of
correctness.

Would that be a problem for the Rosetta code site?

What do others think?

Cheers,

Phil