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,XPRIO
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada 2012 Constraints (WRT an Ada IR)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:45:42 -0600
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <o2ptmm$3s3$2@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rrsoftware.com
X-Trace: franka.jacob-sparre.dk 1481669143 3971 24.196.82.226 (13 Dec 2016
 22:45:43 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 22:45:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:32795
Date: 2016-12-13T16:45:42-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

[Too many replies again, had to break the thread to post - RLB]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
news:o2po6a$1hnq$1@gioia.aioe.org...
...
>> Right, Pre aspects are *not* body!
>
> They are being executed at run time.

So are constraint checks. So what?

The specification of a subprogram needs to contain whatever it is that the
caller needs to know. That's why traditionally one puts comments in a
specification. Pre is just one formalization of what the caller needs to
know. (Caller here means both the execution-time caller - that is the
program, and the programmer caller - that is the human that writes the
program.)

The body of a subprogram contains the remainder - the part the caller does
not need to know.

The separation has nothing to do with execution or compile-time, it's just a
need-to-know. You insist on thinking that execution can somehow be separated
from compile-time, but it's something with no firm boundary. It's all just
semantics in the end (think of a just-in-time compiler for an extreme
example).

                             Randy.