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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b78c363353551702
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.219.170 with SMTP id pp10mr3780925pbc.1.1340377537262;
        Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:05:37 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni7233pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: about the new Ada 2012 pre/post conditions
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:05:38 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <s54pj7rprcxl$.16t5ptnnsjgz1$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <jrsjr7$uuo$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <1hgo6aks03zy.by4pq4xbjsgf$.dlg@40tude.net> <jrsmfh$6fq$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <npdjip6ohqlt$.1x6bxc9jsaago$.dlg@40tude.net> <js00co$clj$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1jvy3elqtnd1j.1sjbk32evhp1f$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4fe45ce8$0$9508$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <1v3soeviat3z1.f0iwle9giqwk.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4fe4819d$0$9525$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-06-22T17:05:38+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:30:52 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 22.06.12 14:43, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:54:16 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>> 
>>> On 22.06.12 09:23, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>>> Neither #1 nor #2 is defendable.
>>>
>>> Maybe dynamic checking is not defendable when the attack is
>>> based on some biased, and, frankly, narrow set of assumptions.
>> 
>> Sure, the most effective defence is just not to take any position. You
>> might get exposed otherwise.
> 
> Who isn't taking a position?

You.

On the contrary, Randy was unambiguously clear that he supports #1.

You might also be surprised by Robert Dewar's opinion on and around the
subject, see recent discussion in LinkedIn, group: "Ada Programming
Language", thread: "Imaginary proposal for the next Ada standard: Ada
compilers will automatically generate Package Specification from Package
Body"

(He was ready to debunk use of exceptions, to dismiss design of Ada I/O.
People could do anything in order to save dynamic checks! (:-))

>> BTW, narrower the set of assumptions is, wider is the context where the
>> conclusion stays true.
> 
> As context is widened, the set of assumptions being narrowed,
> the more specific and less informative the full text.
> Context widening forces a general concept such as pre/post
> to be specific, which it isn't.

No, you cannot narrow any context so that laws of logic would not apply. If
you wanted to make an inherently inconsistent concept working, you would
have to rather widen the context to include alogical things and false
inherence.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de