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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,78447032bdbeb343 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Santiago_Urue=F1a?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Proposal: pragma Assumption Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 01:24:01 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <30917be5-1446-417c-8a4e-18b2f9a1f420@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <97479cac-db1a-4654-949b-2caa45031cf1@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <4d2bb014-c956-454b-bcfb-a98cd524e5b4@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <483fb1d3$0$6556$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.4.11.35 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1212395041 8866 127.0.0.1 (2 Jun 2008 08:24:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:24:01 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=138.4.11.35; posting-account=Lcd2wAoAAAADW2SqWO5AWY55Q-jjpVWU User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; es-ES; rv:1.8.1.10) Gecko/20071115 Iceweasel/2.0.0.10 (Debian-2.0.0.10-0etch1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:510 Date: 2008-06-02T01:24:01-07:00 List-Id: > Yes, it is; just change the build script to pass the right compiler > option. > > The only "fix" for actively malicious programmers is firing them. > Every language feature involves some trade offs. Is it worth adding the "overriding" keyword at the cost of introducing a backwards incompatibility and requiring to change the lexer and the syntax processing of current compilers, furthermore if the same can be checked using formal annotations and a external ASIS tool? I'm not comparing the utility of pragma Assumption with the overriding keyword (which is a great adition IMHO), but the costs of implementing them to a compiler are neither the same: it is fairly cheap to add another pragma so similar to pragma Assert. And the results would be relative high considering the costs: adding support to a common programming practice, in a standardized way, and with less risks than nowadays. So, should it be added to Ada? I don't know, that's why I'm asking here: first to the Ada community, to know whether programmers think it is useful, and after that to the ARG who will decide if it should be added or not to the language. The first step wasn't bad: nobody of the (few) people who replied said that he wouldn't use it (but a lot of answers were more focused on achieving the same effects without adding more features to the language). But I think I will follow Randy's advice, creating a patch for the future GNAT GPL 2008 (let's see if it is really easy to implement or not... :-) and distributing it here. Cheers, -- Santiago Urue=F1a-Pascual Technical University of Madrid (UPM)