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: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: Joachim Durchholz Subject: Re: Safety-critical development in Ada and Eiffel Date: 1997/08/18 Message-ID: <33F832E2.D5322D28@munich.netsurf.de>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 265389374 References: <33E9ADE9.4709@flash.net> <33F133D7.71AC@erols.com> <33F25933.7F83@flash.net> <33F30341.19F7DDE6@calfp.co.uk> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Organization: ccn - computer consultant network GmbH Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-08-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ken Garlington wrote: > This is certainly reasonable. However, once the execution capabilities > are removed, it seems fair to ask what Eiffel provides that comments > (available in most langauges) don't provide. If there is not a > significant > difference, then Eiffel would not be any better (in this context) than > any other language, so long as the DBC principles were followed. Even if the assertions were ignored by the compiler there is a difference. There is a tool called "flat" that examines a class and its ancestors and produces an equivalent class without inheritance. In particular, it collects all assertions from all ancestors and lists them with the final routine. (There is even an option that gives just the signatures and assertions, leaving out the routine bodies.) This gives us full documentation about every routine of every class, without having to refer to ancestor classes. So even if assertions are comments, these comments get included in the flat form of any descendant class. > There is one advantage. If your assertions are compiled, they must > conform to a set restricted style. Comments are, on the other hand > very > free form. Actually it's not restricted style. It is just that comments that are in certain parts of the class text (namely, the assertion sections) automatically gets included in the flat form of descendants. Regards, Joachim -- Please don't send unsolicited ads.