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: 103376,6d79efdb8dde2c5a
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: =?iso-8859-15?Q?Yannick_Duch=EAne_=28Hibou57=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: SPARK : third example for Roesetta - reviewers welcome
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:27:22 +0200
Organization: Ada At Home
Message-ID: <op.vhh3bwnwxmjfy8@garhos>
References: <op.vhguffh3ule2fv@garhos>
 <589eea9a-0b14-4ae5-bf62-9abf4b33e7fb@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <i49oif$1c85$1@adenine.netfront.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: RZkTY5NyuNCeyE5VNfPAfQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.61 (Win32)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13374
Date: 2010-08-16T00:27:22+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Le Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:09:17 +0200, Jeffrey Carter  =

<spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> a =E9crit:
> The large number of Check annotations seems to my untrained eye an  =

> unusual way to use SPARK. As a comparison, the Tokeneer "core" code is=
  =

> 34769 LOC and contains 27 Check annotations, a much lower ratio of  =

> Check/LOC. Is this a good way to present SPARK on Rosetta?
There is no Magic here, what you do not have in Check annotations, you  =

hide it in user rules. The reason why I do not like it, is because you d=
o  =

not see the proofs any more (or great part of it are missing), this is n=
ot  =

any more part of the source. Proofs should come with the implementation.=
 I  =

cannot dissociate both.

May be a matter if personality also.

> Is this a good way to present SPARK on Rosetta?
Rightly, at this place, this is moreover a special case: better to show =
 =

what annotations are than to hide it. People aware of SPARK may guess  =

implicit parts... other users will not. So better show it explicitly (as=
  =

long as the target is to explain what formal validation means with  =

interpretable examples).

At least, I feel it this way. Tell about your comments.