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,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Nick Leaton Subject: Re: Critique of Ariane 5 paper (finally!) Date: 1997/08/26 Message-ID: <34029B86.7D82D3F7@calfp.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 268575677 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: calfp.demon.co.uk [158.152.70.168] References: <33E503B3.3278@flash.net> <33E8FC54.41C67EA6@eiffel.com> <33E9B217.39DA@flash.net> <33EA5592.5855@flash.net> <33EB4935.167EB0E7@eiffel.com> <33EB754E.446B9B3D@eiffel.com> <33EBE46D.2149@flash.net> <33EF9487.41C67EA6@eiffel.com> <33F22B91.167EB0E7@eiffel.com> <33F7C3C0.446B9B3D@eiffel.com> <33FA748A.35FE@flash.net> <33FBD62C.3DD3@invest.amp.com.au> <33FD8685.AAAE3B4F@stratasys.com> <33FE8732.4FBB@invest.amp.com.au> Reply-To: nickle@pauillac Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-08-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Thomas Beale wrote: > Where I think there is more room for debate is in how DBC should be > implemented. I have used Eiffel's DBC for some time, and it is miles > ahead of no DBC. On the other hand, I am sure that there is empirical > and theoretical work to be done which will show how the current idea > in Eiffel can be improved, for example, how to determine the > minimum set of orthogonal assertions for a precondition or invariant, > and whether "synonymous" assertions are good or not. Quantitative > statements have also been mentioned as a desirable thing. I believe > gap between requirements specification and implementation is narrowing: > better formal expression of at least some requirements may soon have > a 1:1 counterpart in an implementation formalism, paving the way for > very seamless software. Explain a bit more about what you mean by 'synonymous'? -- Nick