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-Thread: 103376,ea5071f634c2ea8b
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.0.170 with SMTP id 10mr3793309pbf.2.1322044516417;
        Wed, 23 Nov 2011 02:35:16 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni8675pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Brian Drummond <brian@shapes.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Generic-Package Elaboration Question / Possible GNAT Bug.
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:35:15 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <jaii93$sum$2@dont-email.me>
References: 
 <7bf9bc32-850a-40c6-9ae2-5254fe220533@f29g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
	<4295dc09-43de-4557-a095-fc108359f27f@y42g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
	<fe29npj98k5s$.1vzwcva8q22hk.dlg@40tude.net>
	<a5d7119f-7bb7-41e4-8d76-ef08f2d958d9@g7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
	<3snehoqgs8ia$.1nobjem6g6hx6$.dlg@40tude.net>
	<wcc1ut14o97.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
	<128rdz2581345$.c4td19l7qp9z$.dlg@40tude.net> <jaecvt$4tp$1@dont-email.me>
	<16ipwvpdavifr$.17bxf7if7f6kh$.dlg@40tude.net>
	<4ecb78b1$0$6643$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
	<1iofgbqznsviu$.phvidtvxlyj4$.dlg@40tude.net>
	<4ecbb96e$0$6581$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
	<vagow98uvk3n$.198v2ms719j4e$.dlg@40tude.net>
	<4ecbdfdb$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
	<12hfiflyf7pr5$.l3pkpgoid8xt$.dlg@40tude.net> <jah2np$7fp$1@munin.nbi.dk>
	<1ecuhb030iugz.4q1hfjx371xa.dlg@40tude.net>
	<4ecc393d$0$7625$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
	<124aq618dmove.884jj64mzm6w$.dlg@40tude.net> <m2mxbn89qz.fsf@pushface.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:35:15 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="DkTdSjxOCm6DqG+Uf7eArg";
	logging-data="29654"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+aX6001HTNFhdbxUmDYZm417zu34q69Y0="
User-Agent: Pan/0.134 (Wait for Me; GIT cb32159 master)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:29oE6pJVMUTc9LRcf1Gomsl6sfI=
Xref: news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:14560
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2011-11-23T10:35:15+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:32:20 +0000, Simon Wright wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> 
>> It is lousy language design placing implementation (executable code
>> ensuring the desired behavior, e.g. raising exception) into
>> declarations.
> 
> ...it's not uncommon
> to use complex declarative regions for run-time array bounds etc, which
> will include the possibility of exceptions.
> 
> [Does SPARK forbid such declarative constructs?]

[as I am about 3/4 of the way through reading Barnes : High Integrity 
Software : yes it does. Storage allocation is completely determinable at 
elaboration time, so you can prove everything will fit, long before you 
turn the ignition key]

[ - Brian]