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: Design By Contract Date: 1997/09/05 Message-ID: <341041A6.E45B6425@calfp.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 270020457 References: Reply-To: nickle@pauillac X-NNTP-Posting-Host: calfp.demon.co.uk [158.152.70.168] Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jon S Anthony wrote: > > In article nospam@thanks.com.au (Don Harrison) writes: > > > Especially since you haven't shown how you think child packages can > > give some of what selective export has to offer. It's a bit > > difficult to give an example of what they *don't* offer if it's not > > clear what they *do* offer. > > See Patrick's example. The point is, private children provide a level > of "selective export" (exporting their interfaces only to their > parent's body and certain parts of the private subtrees). IME, this > has been quite sufficient. > > Eiffel's selective export is really much more like the granularity you > get (and the attendant problems from) C++ friendship. Jon, What are the problems? I'm well aware with the issues that arise in C++, particularly with the all or nothing nature of C++ friendship. It is not as if you have to reveal your implementation. Selective revealing of interface I presume is OK, so what mechanism would you provide in its place? -- Nick Eiffel - Possibly the best language in the world - unless proven otherwise.