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: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "John G. Volan" Subject: Re: Separation of IF and Imp: process issue? Date: 1997/09/09 Message-ID: <3415EAE2.1A7A@ac3i.dseg.ti.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 271197604 References: <33E9ADE9.4709@flash.net> <5upe9k$7he@newshub.atmnet.net> <5utag9$o6s@newshub.atmnet.net> <5v1gua$fkk@newshub.atmnet.net> Organization: Raytheon TI Systems Reply-To: johnv@ac3i.dseg.ti.com Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Matthew Heaney wrote: > Just as there is a runtime check to make sure ^^^^^^^ Make that a compile-time check, too. > the user conforms to the specification, there's an analogous compile-time > check to make sure the body conforms to the spec too. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Internet.Usenet.Put_Signature (Name => "John G. Volan", Employer => "Raytheon/TI Advanced C3I Systems, San Jose, CA", Work_Email => "jvolan@ti.com", Home_Email => "johnvolan@sprintmail.com", Slogan => "Ada95: World's *FIRST* International-Standard OOPL", Disclaimer => "My employer never defined these opinions, so using " & "them would be totally erroneous...or is that just " & "nondeterministic behavior now? :-) "); ------------------------------------------------------------------------