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: fac41,39771953fe5b2343 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,39771953fe5b2343 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,39771953fe5b2343 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: rodemann@mathematik.uni-ulm.de (Joerg Rodemann) Subject: Re: New copying license for classes/modules: CGPL Date: 1997/09/17 Message-ID: <341fddde.0@news.uni-ulm.de>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 273310656 References: <341A7F0E.66E46566@cistron.nl> <341EABAB.41C67EA6@eiffel.com> Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada Organization: University of Ulm, SAI, Germany Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-09-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Bertrand Meyer (Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com) wrote: > As far as I understand the discussion, the problem will not > arise for Eiffel. The language is designed so that the code of > generic classes need not be duplicated for different > "generic derivations" of the same generic class > (i.e. different types obtained by providing different generic > parameters, as in LIST [BOAT] and LIST [PERSON]). > Our implementation, and I believe others too, indeed do not > duplicate the code in such cases. Nor is there any need to > "copy the code into your program". Well, sorry to raise this topic again, we had a long discussion about that shortly and it's still continuing, but this seems to point to some problems we discussed in a concrete situation: how is the Eiffel system going to check the usage of a class versus its specification (seems we agreed on the term short-flat form as a similar concept to the Ada spec.) Is the Eiffel system able to check against the compiled library or is it more likely to leave that to the linker as in C++? (Sure, you can check against header files there, but who tells you they are correct, until you link it into an executable?) Is this a problem and a point for separated interface/implementation way? Or is there a simple solution? If so how does it work? Certainly you would not like to include the complete library source, would you? > (Please note that this observation includes no criticism or even > mention of Ada; its intention is simply, since Robert Dewar's > message was cross-posted to comp.lang.eiffel, to address his > point insofar as they apply to Eiffel.) > More generally I think that the idea of adapting the Gnu > Public License to cover reusable O-O components is excellent. Agreed: the time is ripe to think about reusing in a larger way. And I would like to see a much better interoperability between OO-languages as well. Regards Joerg -- rodemann@mathematik.uni-ulm.de | Dipl.-Phys. Joerg S. Rodemann Phone: ++49-(0)711-5090670 | Flurstrasse 21, D-70372 Stuttgart, Germany -------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- rodemann@rus.uni-stuttgart.de | University of Stuttgart, Computing Center Phone: ++49-(0)711-685-5815 | Visualization Department, Office: 0.304 Fax: ++49-(0)711-678-7626 | Allmandring 30a, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany