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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c406e0c4a6eb74ed
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!proxad.net!feeder2-1.proxad.net!news13-e.free.fr!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request
References: <49dc98cf.0408110556.18ae7df@posting.google.com>
 <cgn7bm$snk$3@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <e749549b.0408271348.74f5a957@posting.google.com>
 <cgpma7$pet$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <slrncj0nmf.hl6.adi@ppc201.mipool.uni-jena.de>
 <cgppvn$t4m$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <6F2Yc.848$8d1.621@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <m3isb2ey3w.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
 <hMnYc.1759$w%6.1486@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <m3656vfgmf.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
 <e749549b.0409042036.5d4822a2@posting.google.com>
 <87eklg62x8.fsf@news.bourguet.org>
 <m3sm9ve47r.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
 <878ybnmdzi.fsf@news.bourguet.org>
 <m3brgidrzb.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
From: Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org>
Message-ID: <pxbsm9uccpu.fsf@news.bourguet.org>
Date: 07 Sep 2004 17:37:01 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
NNTP-Posting-Date: 07 Sep 2004 17:37:01 MEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.189.36.28
X-Trace: 1094571421 news13-e.free.fr 28437 62.189.36.28:11576
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3437
Date: 2004-09-07T17:37:01+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

jayessay <nospam@foo.com> writes:

> Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> writes:
[...] 
> The problem here is that this application has tried to hack up some
> lame version of half of Lisp, 

The extension language I wrote about was a scheme with some OO
extensions and then others.  Not a full CL but not something I'd call
a "lame version of half of Lisp."

[...]

> > I'm sorry, tests check *other things* than type constaints, *not*
> > more things.
> 
> Not the sort I'm talking about using the techniques described.
> 
> 
> > Tests can only proove that something happen, never that it doesn't.
> 
> Proving things above the fairly simple level in software falls victim
> to the halting problem.

Do you really mean what you wrote.  If so, I'd suggest you to look a
little more to formal proof systems.  That's not because the full
problem can not be solved that no usefull sub-problem can.

Yours,

-- 
Jean-Marc