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: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: Suzanne Zampella Subject: Re: Interface/Implementation (was Re: Design by Contract) Date: 1997/08/29 Message-ID: <3406CF60.11A867C4@trcinc.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 268928453 References: <34046FAD.52BFA1D7@eiffel.com> <34059557.37C0@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Complaints-To: usenet@rs-temp.ps.net X-Trace: rs-temp.ps.net 872862617 18522 (None) 155.16.26.184 Organization: Technical Resource Connection Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-08-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jon S Anthony wrote: > In article <34059557.37C0@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> "W. Wesley Groleau > x4923" writes: > > > Tucker Taft wrote: > > > In my experience, separating the spec and body physically is > > > extremely advantageous, and the need to have redundancy between > > > the spec and body is an important feature in a multi-person > > > project, not an "inconvenience." > > > > The redundancy itself is not needed. A language _like_ C or Ada > > could be defined where the compiler uses the spec/prototype > > of a function _from_ the other file in compiling the body of the > > function. But it would certainly be a productivity hit if the coder > > > had to do extra work to _see_ the interface while coding the > > implementation. > > Another thing to note here; as (since) people are bandying about > automated tool support for extracting spec or whatever, they need to > realize the dual of this is also readily available: automated support > for generating the operation signatures and stubs for the body from > the spec. > Oh, to be back on the Rat..... We had this way back in '87, 10 years ago... .. code the specification for detailed design -- baseline it in the environment so everyone who interfaced had a stable target, then the CASE generated the body stub and you could change the body till it worked while your fellow team members coded and compiled against your specification. If you wanted to see the specification of something you just put your cursor on it and pressed a function key and up popped a window showing the definition of the item (procedure, variable, whatever). If you didn't remember the parameters of a procedure call, with the a press of a function key the CASE would prompt you for them. Separate bodies and specification are NOT the problem. They are incredibly helpful from a firewall (coding changes stop here without approval) point of view and from the point of view of producing designs that stay with the code. They are also great if you have to have separate bodies on different platforms. What you need is a good CASE. Suzanne Zampella {include STD-Disclaimer}