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 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!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Tests in a software release Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 20:54:54 +0200 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: MajGvm9MbNtGBKE7r8NgYA.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 Content-Language: en-US X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:48606 Date: 2017-10-27T20:54:54+02:00 List-Id: On 2017-10-27 20:06, G. B. wrote: > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> Disabling checks breaks the contract > > Disabling checks means to rely on a contract! No. The contract requires Constraint_Error propagation. Disabling checks breaks that. The intention of allowing checks being disabled was to allow manual optimization in very few cases when the preconditions are known to be stronger than specified. The source of this knowledge is unknown, it is up to the code maintainer to assert it. For this reason disabling checks cannot be the rule in contrary to what Victor suggested. > The contract states what you may assume. The contract defines partial behavior. > It is worrisome when a thing‘s properties are > named its „contract“. Some properties are contracted some are not. Nothing to worry about... -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de