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.835938804@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 163193815
references: <JSA.96Jun18142249@organon.com> <dewar.835121649@schonberg>
 <dewar.835306677@schonberg> <4ql1fv$5ss@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>
 <DtI7n4.Brz@world.std.com> <4qrljg$15l8@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-06-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Norman Cohen said

"|> The third case that Robert mentioned -- an assertion that cannot affect
|> the behavior of the program in any way -- is quite impossible to define
|> in language terms.  It very well might be a useful thing, though.

Sounds like a comment to me (albeit with compile-time type checking).
"

Sorry, I was not clear, people still want the assertion checked at run
time, but they don't want the presence of the assertion to affect the
rest of the program in any other way.