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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: Safety-critical development in Ada and Eiffel Date: 1997/08/19 Message-ID: <33FA7611.4E16@flash.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 265459057 References: <33E9ADE9.4709@flash.net> <33F133D7.71AC@erols.com> <33F25933.7F83@flash.net> <33F30341.19F7DDE6@calfp.co.uk> <33F832E2.D5322D28@munich.netsurf.de> Reply-To: Ken.Garlington@computer.org Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-08-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Joachim Durchholz wrote: > > 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. Can't such an extra-language tool be equally valid with comments in any language (that has classes)? > > > 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. This doesn't sound like Eiffel assertions, which are compiled. > > Regards, > Joachim > -- > Please don't send unsolicited ads.