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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,63a41ccea0fc803a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Matthew Heaney Subject: Re: Naming of Tagged Types and Associated Packages Date: 1998/09/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 391738455 Sender: matt@mheaney.ni.net References: <6qfp80$p0u$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35CD0A8E.21D64380@sprintmail.com> <35CEBAAF.B9B82820@sprintmail.com> <35F0CAF2.9B447FD2@sprintmail.com> <35F2AEEA.94D37DFF@sprintmail.com> <35F36963.5C7174E9@sprintmail.com> <35F41EA6.3D8EDADD@sprintmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:42:08 PDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "John G. Volan" writes: > class JOHN_VOLAN_SIGNATURE inherit SIGNATURE invariant > disclaimer: not (opinion implies employer.opinion) > end -- class JOHN_VOLAN_SIGNATURE That Ada doesn't have an implication operator is a real bummer. It makes it difficult to state a postcondition: not (opinion implies employer.opinion) = not (not opinion or employer.opinion) = opinion and not employer.opinion I would say the form using implication is more clear, eh?