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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7a7040918881fd02 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-11 01:23:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!deine.net!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!news-server.bigpond.net.au!not-for-mail From: Dale Stanbrough Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Assertions in the Next Ada Standard Organization: RMIT References: <3C3E8438.E780D942@adaworks.com> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:23:02 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 144.132.91.90 X-Complaints-To: news@bigpond.net.au X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 1010740982 144.132.91.90 (Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:23:02 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:23:02 EST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18762 Date: 2002-01-11T09:23:02+00:00 List-Id: Richard Riehle wrote: > I am hoping to see something like pre-conditions, post-conditions, > and invariants in the next revision of Ada. I would be pleased if > we simply adopted the wording already used in Eiffel: require, > ensure, and invariant, but I am not intractable about the terminology. > > So, who is working on the proposal for this? > > Richard Riehle I think another valuable one would be "assume" which is an assertion that allows the compiler to invoke any code optimisation it can. Dale