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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: some trivial questions?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 02:19:09 +0200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <ov5463$1adm$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <6a5368c5-f015-4dcb-9291-e77b40fa1bf1@googlegroups.com>
 <ff607ea1-9d64-441b-b5e6-1a4377a5a199@googlegroups.com>
 <oteku0$ek3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <oulbpm$p2t$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <oum6qv$1bdr$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ouo1hg$fjr$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <ouotuh$1ig3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ouvjfp$8rd$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <ov0v0f$663$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ov2hvr$i7m$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <87mv3fdsi3.fsf@nightsong.com> <ov53vd$ef3$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edFHTOfx8phAphItWrZ8cQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: KNode/4.14.10
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: feeder.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:49080
Date: 2017-11-23T02:19:09+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Randy Brukardt wrote:

> "Paul Rubin" <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:87mv3fdsi3.fsf@nightsong.com...
>> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
>>> Of course, a true proof is hard to do when the rules are primarily
>>> modeled
>>> in English as opposed to some formal system.
>>
>> I'm surprised Ada doesn't have a formal semantics.  Maybe that's
>> something that should be fixed?
> 
> That was attempted during Ada 9x, but the problem was that there was no

Attempted in 90th?!

Which formal proof assistant was used?

> way for normal humans to see if the formal semantics in fact properly
> modeled the language. Only the authors actually understood the formal
> model.
> 
> Creating a model that both formal and understandable by a run-of-the-mill
> language lawyer and finding volunteers to create the model seems unlikely
> (to say the least).
> 
>                                             Randy.
-- 
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org