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
Path: 
 border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is there a way to do large block of source code comments
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:17:16 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lu6iqd$n08$1@dont-email.me>
References: <f6d1bf8f-cede-435e-9a12-ebae61ea95ca@googlegroups.com>
 <c6juh0F7eb5U1@mid.individual.net>
 <1285756762431293678.582499nonlegitur-futureapps.invalid@reader80.eternal-september.org>
 <c6k4n1F944hU1@mid.individual.net> <lu4fs5$q6q$1@dont-email.me>
 <lu5k4h$c19$1@loke.gir.dk>
Reply-To: nonlegitur@futureapps.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 08:17:17 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="a631f4a085ededc0f5b0769b7fe21a52";
 logging-data="23560"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
 posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18nQS4G94eNUsGTK+oQgv6mjXorR6xrEc0="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
In-Reply-To: <lu5k4h$c19$1@loke.gir.dk>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7GGJnY8vTrfi+AHBEsRruEnzaZc=
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:188823
Date: 2014-09-03T10:17:16+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 03.09.14 01:33, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "G.B." <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid> wrote in message
> news:lu4fs5$q6q$1@dont-email.me...
> ...
>> On the other hand, in Ada 2012, there now is a way for programmers
>> to "explain aspects of the code that are otherwise not
>> readily apparent." [ibid.]. This can be achieved, in part, by using
>> the contract related aspects of RM 6.1.1. Similarly, a standard
>> aspect for things still not readily apparent could be hooked to
>> an aspect, as explained below.
>
> If you're talking about aspects in general, they're defined in 13.1.1. This
> certainly wouldn't be a contract aspect

There's the huge misunderstanding. My fault not explaining it well.

Comments, as outlined, are definitely parts of contracts, and crucially so,
because a party can be held responsible if the comment is wrong.
"Contract based programming" is the important activity(!) that gives
asserting conditions the same significance as asserting comments.

- If a contract is wrong, the program needs to be fixed.
- If a comment is wrong, the, uhm, comment needs to be fixed???

(Ah. That's the engineers getaway car. I see.)

If comments can be "attached" to some declaration in the sense of 13.1.1,
that's a means to an end, thanks for the reference.

Won't send.