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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ea5071f634c2ea8b
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Received: by 10.68.15.41 with SMTP id u9mr2586625pbc.3.1322021314917;
        Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:08:34 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni7679pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!news-transit.tcx.org.uk!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?=
 =?utf-8?Q?=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Generic-Package Elaboration Question / Possible GNAT Bug.
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 05:08:33 +0100
Organization: Ada @ Home
Message-ID: <op.v5dsgjstule2fv@douda-yannick>
References: 
 <7bf9bc32-850a-40c6-9ae2-5254fe220533@f29g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <wcc4nxzu5gf.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <4295dc09-43de-4557-a095-fc108359f27f@y42g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <fe29npj98k5s$.1vzwcva8q22hk.dlg@40tude.net>
 <a5d7119f-7bb7-41e4-8d76-ef08f2d958d9@g7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
 <3snehoqgs8ia$.1nobjem6g6hx6$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wcc1ut14o97.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <128rdz2581345$.c4td19l7qp9z$.dlg@40tude.net> <jaecvt$4tp$1@dont-email.me>
 <16ipwvpdavifr$.17bxf7if7f6kh$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4ecb78b1$0$6643$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <1iofgbqznsviu$.phvidtvxlyj4$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4ecbb96e$0$6581$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <vagow98uvk3n$.198v2ms719j4e$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4ecbdfdb$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <12hfiflyf7pr5$.l3pkpgoid8xt$.dlg@40tude.net> <jah2np$7fp$1@munin.nbi.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: wgHBtatYse3YjKAUQsirEA.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.60 (Linux)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:14542
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
Date: 2011-11-23T05:08:33+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Le Tue, 22 Nov 2011 22:03:52 +0100, Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com=
>  =

a =C3=A9crit:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
> news:12hfiflyf7pr5$.l3pkpgoid8xt$.dlg@40tude.net...
>  > I my experience at least 40% of my debugging
>> efforts in Ada 95 was spent on catching accessibility checks faults. =
Ada
>> 2005 improved that greatly. To me this is a vivid example why dynamic=

>> checks are evil.
>
> It's not "dynamic checks" that are evil, it is checking the uncheckabl=
e  =

> that is evil.
That's why C/C++ assertion macros will never value as much: it does not =
 =

even  help to warrant the check, at the time it is done, is valid (just =
 =

forget a hand written assertion check on array bounds, and the later han=
d  =

written assertion check on the value of an item in that array will just =
be  =

random result, and may even fail to trap an error).

I like the view you underline, that not only checks are to prevent inval=
id  =

execution, but also have to ensure checks them-self are valid. Each chec=
k  =

also warrant the validity of all other checks. In practice, this is more=
  =

safely achieved automatically. Nice point.

-- =

=E2=80=9CSyntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.=E2=80=9D  [Ep=
igrams on  =

Programming =E2=80=94 Alan J. =E2=80=94 P. Yale University]
=E2=80=9CStructured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.=
=E2=80=9D [Idem]