From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Subject: Re: Anna
Date: 28 Feb 1995 15:48:25 +1100
Date: 1995-02-28T15:48:25+11:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3iu9up$9ej@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3hqhe9$h66@watnews1.watson.ibm.com
I asked:
Has anything been written about how one
ought to go about annotating O-O Ada?
ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen) writes:
>Yes, a book called _Object-Oriented_Software_Construction_, by Bertrand
>Meyer. For some reason ;-), all the examples are in Eiffel rather than
>Ada 95, but the basic approach carries over.
I already have that book, and a set of Eiffel manuals. For that and other
reasons, the reply somewhat misses the point. I am well aware of the idea
of representation invariants and method invariants inheriting from parents,
and I am aware of how that is expressed in Eiffel.
The question is: HOW IS THAT TO BE SAID IN ANNA?
Is there, for example, a new Anna-95 notation all worked out, or is there
perhaps a (relatively) widely understood way of expressing the same idea
using existing Anna?
--
"The complex-type shall be a simple-type." ISO 10206:1991 (Extended Pascal)
Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/~ok; RMIT Comp.Sci.
next parent reply other threads:[~1995-02-28 4:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <3hp8ob$n36@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
[not found] ` <3hqhe9$h66@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
1995-02-28 4:48 ` Richard A. O'Keefe [this message]
1991-02-09 20:45 ANNA Stephen J Bevan
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox