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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,81bb2ce65a3240c3
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.230.98 with SMTP id sx2mr6031726pbc.1.1335566994373;
        Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 r9ni105986pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X?
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:49:45 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <jnf7qe$dik$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5>
 <9af5eaaa-1c48-4455-a8e8-39dd9ee8092d@ot8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
 <op.wdcj0snyule2fv@douda-yannick>
 <bjg1nrfssv58$.1f05frcj5q54s$.dlg@40tude.net> <jnco48$35q$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <op.wderwrjxule2fv@douda-yannick>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1335566991 13908 69.95.181.76 (27 Apr 2012 22:49:51 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:49:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Date: 2012-04-27T17:49:45-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote in message 
news:op.wderwrjxule2fv@douda-yannick...
...
>> Not sure what you mean by this; Ada has always had that policy. Indeed,
>> there was a formal proof for Ada 95 that there were no Beaujolias effects
>> (which is essentially the same thing).
>Formal proof? Or did you mean strong certitudes?

During the Ada 9x project, there was a "formal methods" team that was 
supposed to apply formal analysis to what became Ada 95. Their big "product" 
was a formal proof that there no Beaujolias effects in Ada 95. (There were a 
number of other teams, including several "user/implementer" teams that 
prototypes parts of the language -- I led one of those during Ada 9x.)

Of course, like most formal proofs, it was beyond my understanding, so I 
really have no idea if it was correct. But it definitely was done.

                                                     Randy.