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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: Karel Th�nissen Subject: Re: Safety-critical development in Ada and Eiffel Date: 1997/07/17 Message-ID: <33CE14E1.2B9F@hello.nl>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 257420814 References: Organization: Hello Technologies, Netherlands Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-07-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Don Harrison wrote: > Interestingly, this issue reveals a benefit of unifying module and type. > A unified model that dictates unique class names (eg. Eiffel's) simplifies > things by allowing class names to serve a twofold purpose in clients - > importing modules and entity (variable or routine parameter) declarations. > In one fell swoop, the need for import statements ("with"), visibility > statements ("use"), and module prefixes for diambiguation disappear. Correct, that this is unified in Eiffel, but the problem is pushed towards Lace: in Lace you do more or less the same as with and use in Ada. You cannot have human-friendly names for classes/components if you also want to use classes written by third party vendors. There just is no way to avoid vendors from using identical symbolic names for their gadgets. So renaming and specification of classes used remains necessary. Groeten, Karel