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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,86b57370403509bc
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!ecngs!feeder.ecngs.de!news.k-dsl.de!feed.xsnews.nl!border-3.ams.xsnews.nl!193.141.40.65.MISMATCH!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Disabling string evaluation in a logging system
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: 
 <de99764a-fe45-4207-ad34-ed0cf1978d59@c13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
  <15grablk8asle$.z2pjxbkmcyhz.dlg@40tude.net>
 <6b7b4465-3e08-4690-8318-10f58329ccfc@e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 12:26:21 +0200
Message-ID: <ju8m8d6botq0$.qtu40uxkbb7w.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 May 2010 12:26:21 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: b47a816c.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=IE7`3IlI7^L@k=MdN::NBI4IUK<Cl32<A4Fo<]lROoRA8kF<OcfhCOK2cZJ9mafk3E[6LHn;2LCVN7enW;^6ZC`D\`mfM[68DCCWXRFajJ>BnB
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:11715
Date: 2010-05-18T12:26:21+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 18 May 2010 02:45:35 -0700 (PDT), Cyrille wrote:

> On May 18, 10:15�am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
> wrote:
> 
>> But if I were to make a proposal, then I would do the useless pargma Assert
>> useful. E.g.
>>
>> � �pragma Assert (Condition, Message);
>>
>> [Change]
>> Dynamic semantics: Message is evaluated only if Condition is evaluated to
>> true. Then a user-defined assertion handler is called, if any (to be set by
>> Assertion_Policy). Otherwise Assertion_Error is propagated.
> 
> something like pragma Check & Check_Policy in GNAT, right?

Important is laziness in the evaluation of the message expression.
Switching off by compiler is rather a disadvantage, because logging is to
be configured dynamically.

BTW, it could be a statement, e.g. conditional call:

   <procedure/entry-call> when <condition>;

A similar thing is badly needed for declarations as well, e.g. awful:

   if Object in T'Class then
      declare
         T_Object : T'Class renames T'Class (Object);
      begin
         ...
      end;
   end if;

(cannot invent any good syntax for that)

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de