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,df055ffdd469757d
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
X-Received: by 10.66.162.163 with SMTP id yb3mr1941156pab.14.1361214152427;
        Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:02:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.50.217.225 with SMTP id pb1mr1597036igc.5.1361214152200;
 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:02:32 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 jm3ni9pbb.0!nntp.google.com!kc14no13632544pbb.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:02:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1hjhzbhx5ryn7$.rst5open618c.dlg@40tude.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=123.224.148.173;
 posting-account=Mi71UQoAAACnFhXo1NVxPlurinchtkIj
NNTP-Posting-Host: 123.224.148.173
References: <e155e2d6-ba1f-4fc0-a6e3-dafde002670b@googlegroups.com>
 <kfmlq1$puv$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <30edd381-7505-496a-99e5-f884faf33c33@googlegroups.com>
 <16s3mt7cm3n61$.8qu6fp1nglfq.dlg@40tude.net>
 <bf5a32d8-6ee9-413d-83ed-c2f076e065e4@googlegroups.com>
 <1a648dqoysnp4$.7l9zsp043d2e.dlg@40tude.net>
 <377a4b9b-eec8-4af9-af3f-fdeb008339e4@googlegroups.com>
 <1hjhzbhx5ryn7$.rst5open618c.dlg@40tude.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e9c9f346-92f8-4504-b8b3-eb7eb8145f26@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Class wide preconditions: error in GNAT implementation?
From: ytomino <aghia05@gmail.com>
Cc: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:02:32 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2013-02-18T11:02:31-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Monday, February 18, 2013 5:30:16 PM UTC+9, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> No, all preconditions must be satisfied, otherwise, the program is
> incorrect, provided it is correctness we are talking about.
>=20
> But then the precondition of B'Class is *required* to be true for an obje=
ct
> which is in that class. The precondition of A'Class is weaker and need no=
t
> to be checked if one for B'Class is satisfied.

Excuse me for misunderstanding your opinion.

But, do you have the same mistake as mine in=A0the first post?
Preconditions are combined by "or else".
Therefore, increasing its conditions means making it weaker.