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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,64f0fb07a88662b1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed.stueberl.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!carbon.eu.sun.com!btnet-feed5!btnet!news.btopenworld.com!not-for-mail From: Martin Dowie Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Contract checking in Ada Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:29:54 +0000 (UTC) Organization: BT Openworld Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-154-188-69.range81-154.btcentralplus.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: titan.btinternet.com 1113334194 11808 81.154.188.69 (12 Apr 2005 19:29:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news-complaints@lists.btinternet.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:29:54 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10401 Date: 2005-04-12T19:29:54+00:00 List-Id: Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Tapio, > > >>Ada has very powerful run-time checking system which allows for safe >>programming and efficient execution, depending on the user's needs. As >>I look at the ARM and GNAT Runtime Library sources, I have noticed >>that this does not unfortunately apply to Ada's standard library. Many >>subprograms check that its parameters are valid. I'm not saying that >>parameter validity checking is bad, becuase it is very useful, but the >>user should be able to disable it, when (s)he is certain, that the >>conditions will not fail. I'm quite surprised that Ada2005 does not >>replace library functions' parameter checks with pragma Assert, in >>which >>case user could disable checking. In GNAT library, for example, many >>checks >>are done twice (or even more times), because the library has its own >>checks >>and the language has its own. > > > the GNAT run-time library is built without run-time checks (-gnatp). I think that the OP is complaining that there are explicit checks in the subprograms that /can't/ be turned off - even though you know that you're code isn't "broken". Cheers -- Martin