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: 103376,9e7db243dfa070d7
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!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: Do people who use Ada also use ocaml or F#?
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 00:41:18 +0100
Organization: Ada @ Home
Message-ID: <op.vlrv241aule2fv@garhos>
References: 
 <b17dc7a8-7f8e-46b7-942c-b08ba83ce8fa@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <gt9eaeq2y4pc$.11t5wghh3e8jh$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <87k4kz3mda.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
 <amlrr4wam4x6.10s9ynz9e8br$.dlg@40tude.net> <op.vlekzab8ule2fv@garhos>
 <5jjgrklivesk$.z0is5qe7mgbt.dlg@40tude.net>
 <b162afef-505e-492e-80b6-be636de6d236@y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <khe570ncicmo.1qbyqnnvl4zrp.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wccpqukc50q.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <82mxpmz7t3.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <wcclj56cgsx.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <t3psuch4qhzm$.ee2rft9bazm6.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: w00cPq0BvzOlRCSRJJEoeQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; 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/10.63 (Win32)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:16328
Date: 2010-11-07T00:41:18+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Le Sun, 07 Nov 2010 00:03:04 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov  =

<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a =C3=A9crit:
> Furthermore, I would bet that practically any generic can be broken pe=
r
> erroneous instantiation, e.g. by passing function "-" where "+" expect=
ed.
Good point. I don't know how I didn't though about this one (may be  =

because I do not use generics that much).

Now better understand your point about formal proof. Until we get it, wh=
y  =

not a sanity check in generics initialization ? This sanity check could =
 =

test assertions like the ones you would like to express in formal  =

contract, and raise a runtime error if ever if fails. This is no more  =

exception safe, but better an application which raise an error at startu=
p  =

than one which do silly things without a single warning.


-- =

Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c=E2=80=99es=
t pas pour  =

les chiens.

=E2=80=9CI am fluent in ASCII=E2=80=9D [Warren 2010]