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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2e71cf22768a124d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Assertions (was: Re: next "big" language?? (disagree))
Date: 1996/06/28
Message-ID: <dewar.835938734@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 163192558
references: <JSA.96Jun18142249@organon.com> <4ql1fv$5ss@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>
 <DtI7n4.Brz@world.std.com> <dewar.835633172@schonberg>
 <DtK3JE.Hpo@world.std.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-06-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"According to 11.5(26), failing a check IS erroneous, if that check has
been suppressed.  According to 11.5(27), an implementation may "add
additional check names, with implementation-defined semantics" -- such
as the Assertion_Check that I invented, above.
"

Yes, Bob (Duff), I agree this approach is viable, I missed that you
were inventing a new check, and I agree it is a reasonable one!