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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.182.109.200 with SMTP id hu8mr2906568obb.20.1393463797955; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:16:37 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.59.179 with SMTP id a19mr637729igr.10.1393463797836; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:16:37 -0800 (PST) Path: border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!news.glorb.com!uq10no445805igb.0!news-out.google.com!h8ni3igy.0!nntp.google.com!uq10no445801igb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:16:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=KSa2aQoAAACOxnC0usBJYX8NE3x3a1Xq NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: <3b16296c-3a9b-478e-a113-44415f665121@googlegroups.com> <3cf20663-960d-4ab1-9210-08042ca6af43@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Class Wide Type Invariants - My bug or compiler bug From: adambeneschan@gmail.com Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 01:16:37 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Date: 2014-02-26T17:16:37-08:00 List-Id: On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 5:01:45 PM UTC-8, Randy Brukardt wrote: > 7.3.2(19/3) is a mess, however. AI12-0042-1 changed it a lot, but that > change isn't right either, so it's rather in limbo at the moment. (See the > working RM for the current state of things.) > > Note that a literal implementation of 7.3.2(19/3) would cause every > invariant check to go infinitely recursive, since there is supposed to be an > invariant check on the parameter of Check_In, which is called from the > invariant check - repeat forever. GNAT doesn't implement that for obvious > reasons, so it can't exactly implement the rule as written, and once you > have to go off the grid, all bets are off. > > Some parts will be in every rule (checking of in out and out parameters, for > instance), so you probably can assume those are checked. But that's about > it. Probably it would be better to not depend too much on Type_Invariants > until we figure out what rules actually make sense (and we find a set that > isn't insane for one reason or another). Interesting ... thanks. -- Adam