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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1d1caf8fb79ff030
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.74.201 with SMTP id w9mr15682751pbv.0.1330890295919;
        Sun, 04 Mar 2012 11:44:55 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 h9ni39330pbe.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 13:44:50 -0600
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 14:44:41 -0500
From: "Peter C. Chapin" <PChapin@vtc.vsc.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: SPARK loop VCs that go "one beyond" the loop?
References: <aYCdndGkyL_dCc7S4p2dnAA@giganews.com>
 <MPG.29bdc816fbebb1ae989692@news.zen.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <MPG.29bdc816fbebb1ae989692@news.zen.co.uk>
Message-ID: <vpqdnYMbkompW87S4p2dnAA@giganews.com>
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: 
 sv3-J5EbJmlQwSbP9ndAcWDvPhvJimI/lI9U+ut62hzzGGqyDdMplLkyh37/aQL9EvTPWj+SVuD+fWRAdUA!99zjKuCv9w/0jfnk+PSGfPa9FMKgwmXF7dLXa5tHi5Ejg6Po1qM5CgqZoPJ54U8=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2630
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-03-04T14:44:41-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2012-03-04 13:43, Phil Thornley wrote:

> I would like to give a more considered reply than I have time for just
> now, however:
>
> I am fairly sure that what you need to add to the assertion is the
> result of the earlier check:
>     Event_Array(I).Description_Size<= Description'Length
>
> You may also need to state that the upper bound on J is not changed by
> the loop body:
>     Event_Array = Event_Array%

I tried changing the assertion to

   --# assert Event_Array(I).Description_Size <= Description'Length and
   --#        (J - 1) < Description'Length;

but that didn't help by itself. When I tried adding Event_Array = 
Event_Array% that didn't seem to do anything. I have a feeling that 
because Event_Array has mode 'in' the Examiner is already considering 
its constancy.

I did notice, however, that there was a hypothesis that talked about 
Event_Array(i__loop__2__entry). It seemed to me that the hypothesis was 
somewhat related to my conclusion so as a guess I tried

   --# assert Event_Array(I).Description_Size <= Description'Length and
   --#        I = I% and
   --#        (J - 1) < Description'Length;

That worked! However, I'm still trying to understand the general 
principle that can guide me in these situations. I feel like I have to 
resort to semi-random attempts until I stumble into something that works.

Anyway, thanks for your hint.

Peter