From: Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Assertions in the Next Ada Standard
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:42:06 GMT
Date: 2002-01-14T17:42:06+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3C431843.47796094@san.rr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: wccadvgq27z.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com
Robert A Duff wrote:
> The Eiffel rules are certainly a good starting point. But it would
> require some thought to translate them into the Ada world.
No question. My point was that DbC *should* be more than what you could
do with just a macro preprocessor translator into inline asserts. The
right answer for Ada, with tasks, protected types, tagged types, limited
types, etc is likely to be far more complex than for a language as
simple as Eiffel.
Unfortunately, I don't have enough experience with Ada to have a good
idea of all the pitfalls I'd run into if I tried to work something out
myself. :-)
--
Darren New
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
The opposite of always is sometimes.
The opposite of never is sometimes.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-01-14 17:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-01-11 6:20 Assertions in the Next Ada Standard Richard Riehle
2002-01-11 9:23 ` Dale Stanbrough
2002-01-11 13:47 ` Robert A Duff
2002-01-11 23:28 ` Nick Roberts
2002-01-12 1:30 ` Darren New
2002-01-11 20:07 ` FGD
2002-01-11 20:39 ` Wes Groleau
2002-01-12 4:56 ` Robert Dewar
2002-01-12 7:30 ` Richard Riehle
2002-01-12 19:58 ` FGD
2002-01-12 21:27 ` Ed Falis
2002-01-12 22:45 ` Darren New
2002-01-14 17:20 ` Robert A Duff
2002-01-14 17:42 ` Darren New [this message]
2002-01-14 23:16 ` Mark Lundquist
2002-01-17 6:23 ` Richard Riehle
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox