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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b78c363353551702
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.228.227 with SMTP id sl3mr7852693pbc.5.1340473674984;
        Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:47:54 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni11445pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: about the new Ada 2012 pre/post conditions
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <cff0acd8-aacc-42d2-8573-09ea34addff1@googlegroups.com>
References: <jrsjr7$uuo$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <1hgo6aks03zy.by4pq4xbjsgf$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <jrsmfh$6fq$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <npdjip6ohqlt$.1x6bxc9jsaago$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <js00co$clj$1@munin.nbi.dk> <1jvy3elqtnd1j.1sjbk32evhp1f$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <js2hq5$9fj$1@munin.nbi.dk> <1oih2rok18dmt.avbwrres5k12.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4fe59ea0$0$9502$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <1mkp7fzlk1b0y.1ueinfjn48fcy$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 91.7.101.68
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1340473673 15031 127.0.0.1 (23 Jun 2012 17:47:53
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:47:53 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
In-Reply-To: <1mkp7fzlk1b0y.1ueinfjn48fcy$.dlg@40tude.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=91.7.101.68;
 posting-account=rmHyLAoAAADSQmMWJF0a_815Fdd96RDf
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2012-06-23T10:46:35-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Saturday, June 23, 2012 1:01:17 PM UTC+2, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> It is OK if New_Line(0) would reboot the computer?

Really, I do not understand your argument.
If the argument of New_Line is 0, the procedure is not even called, so its body is irrelevant. The evaluation of the argument raises Constraint_Error as defined in the RM. How could it reboot the computer? The consequences of CE are well-defined.

So what? I think I'm not the only one who is often lost in following your arguments.

> New_Line(0) is not straight legal, it not an error in the classification of
> errors (RM 1.1.5).

What? You surely have read 1.1.5(5)?
> 
> Compare: a contract violation is an *unbounded ERROR*.
> 
> Aside. If you could estimate the effect of a contract violation, in order
> to make the case for a bounded error, that would not save the idea of
> checking either. Because, of course, in that case you also could detect the
> violation itself, which is a much simpler task than tracking all possible
> consequences down.
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Dmitry A. Kazakov
> http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de