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,b78c363353551702 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.227.67 with SMTP id ry3mr14914610pbc.8.1341623922472; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:18:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Path: l9ni11017pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!feed-C.news.volia.net!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" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: about the new Ada 2012 pre/post conditions Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 20:18:31 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <1pkfv0tiod3rn$.onx6dmaa3if9$.dlg@40tude.net> <1i1mp8xs3vtl2.1oc4m66qtfgzq.dlg@40tude.net> <33crfw5vkxoh$.kz5mq75s36ee.dlg@40tude.net> <43e4637c-3337-4d99-be45-20e054e5a203@googlegroups.com> <6ua1uo9zmkjn$.1tmqyzmetx71u$.dlg@40tude.net> <4ff6969e$0$9514$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <1xkiqefb6watw.10fvt344m3c4g$.dlg@40tude.net> <4ff6a20a$0$9525$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <1l7pg7ihwb9vn$.kq6k3ypjwl07.dlg@40tude.net> <4ff6d51a$0$9514$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <7xnkuta2d94n$.1815f9iev4s7r$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1341623919 20843 69.95.181.76 (7 Jul 2012 01:18:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2012 01:18:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Date: 2012-07-06T20:18:31-05:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message news:7xnkuta2d94n$.1815f9iev4s7r$.dlg@40tude.net... ... > But wait a minute and re-read what you wrote. You say that the behaviour > of > sqrt(-1.0) is basically unspecified. This is where dynamic checks have led > you into. If you suppress checks, basically the behavior of all programs are unspecified. Thus, I highly recommend that you don't do that. (Consider Suppress similar to Unchecked_Conversion -- OK when used in the right hands, dangerous otherwise.) If you *don't* suppress checks, the behavior is well-defined. So what? Randy.