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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ted Velkoff <velkoff@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Safety-critical development in Ada and Eiffel
Date: 1997/07/11
Message-ID: <33C5B971.7845@erols.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 256116718
References: <ED2MuF.4n6.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com> <ED3E9M.F0u@syd.csa.com.au>
 <01bc8d8c$e608b740$6bb32399@default>
Organization: Erol's Internet Services
X-Received-On: 11 Jul 1997 04:38:44 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel
Date: 1997-07-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Ken Garlington wrote:

> I'm not sure what was in Ada83 that was omitted in Ada95; however, I have
> noticed
> that Eiffel examples posted in various places tend to have assertions that
> are
> fairly simple in nature (range checks), etc that are directly representable
> in Ada.
> Those that aren't tend to be easy to do with good Ada design using
> exceptions (sort
> of the same "good design principles" that you discussed using in Eiffel to
> get
> the features made explicit in Ada).
> 

There's a big difference between assertions and exceptions.

I think a sign that says: "Dangerous curve ahead: left turn required"
(precondition)

is much more useful than one that says: "Accident zone ahead"
(exception declaration)

-- Ted Velkoff