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: a07f3367d7,39579ad87542da0e
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
X-Received: by 10.66.67.37 with SMTP id k5mr4870677pat.22.1368583609301;
        Tue, 14 May 2013 19:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 bp1ni2274pbd.1!nntp.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.news.ucla.edu!nrc-news.nrc.ca!News.Dal.Ca!news.litech.org!news.stack.nl!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: Seeking for papers about tagged types vs access to subprograms
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 14:59:04 +0200
Organization: Ada @ Home
Message-ID: <op.wwvc0qgxule2fv@cardamome>
References: <op.wv8jh1c1ule2fv@cardamome>
 <1vrhb7oc4qbob$.q02vuouyovp5$.dlg@40tude.net> <op.wwn4oak8ule2fv@cardamome>
 <19lrzzbgm77v6.1dzpgqckptaj6.dlg@40tude.net> <kmbohm$elb$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <p0pf97g5w6xg.jhca6ztjwpde$.dlg@40tude.net> <op.wwq9s4l6ule2fv@cardamome>
 <1bfhq7jo34xpi.p8n2vq6yjsea.dlg@40tude.net> <op.wwrefx1pule2fv@cardamome>
 <cps71yzogw24$.7ol98fxcaurj$.dlg@40tude.net> <op.wwriky0dule2fv@cardamome>
 <nd22gfeezrwf$.tlj4yyygrwq3$.dlg@40tude.net> <kmecg6$et4$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <12gn9wvv1gwfk.10ikfju4rzmnj.dlg@40tude.net> <kmh7d4$up3$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <op.wwumn3r2ule2fv@cardamome> <ebebe368y8s9$.vfm8f23pnkjr.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.wwu8cmo7ule2fv@cardamome> <1cir6d72wemw.qxx9mozot7hl.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.wwvb4yczule2fv@cardamome>
NNTP-Posting-Host: uGUognJZXpdb++Da0QvCqg.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.15 (Linux)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Received-Bytes: 3325
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
Date: 2013-05-10T14:59:04+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Le Fri, 10 May 2013 14:40:00 +0200, Yannick Duch=C3=AAne (Hibou57)  =

<yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> a =C3=A9crit:

> Le Fri, 10 May 2013 14:15:35 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  =

> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a =C3=A9crit:
>>> If so, that's indeed be true, as the program can then
>>> be derived, but there is not a single possible derivation, there are=

>>> typically multiple solutions, so the program still requires human
>>> intervention to be generated.
>>
>> Human intervention is needed to handle the semantics, not because of
>> multiplicity of implementations. You could choose them randomly.
>
> You can't choose randomly, the program must have runtime properties as=
  =

> well.

I should have given another example, a more obvious one: as the program =
 =

derivation is a consequence of a proof the specification is satisfiable =
 =

(the proof and the program are the same thing), automated program  =

generation from the specification, would implies automated proof. This  =

does not exist with the actual technology, if not for trivial stuffs. So=
  =

far you have proof assistants, not automated provers (just some steps of=
  =

proofs may be automated, if the user request some help from the assistan=
t=E2=80=A6  =

but it may fail and it's not usable for program generation as far as I  =

know).

-- =

=E2=80=9CSyntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.=E2=80=9D [1]
=E2=80=9CStructured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.=
=E2=80=9D [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming =E2=80=94 Alan J. =E2=80=94 P. Yale Univers=
ity