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: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
From: dnew@zloty.fv.com (Darren New)
Subject: Re: Separation of IF and Imp: process issue?
Date: 1997/09/08
Message-ID: <5v1gua$fkk@newshub.atmnet.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 270763648
References: <33E9ADE9.4709@flash.net> <5upe9k$7he@newshub.atmnet.net>
 <mheaney-ya023680000609971422530001@news.ni.net>
 <5utag9$o6s@newshub.atmnet.net>
Organization: FIRST VIRTUAL Holdings Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel
Date: 1997-09-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


>> The separation of
>>interface and implementation also allows the contract to be managed
>>independently of the implementation, using traditional configuration
>>management tools.
>
>There's the rub.  My point was, why do you think traditional
>configuration management tools can't generate a short form from the
>Eiffel class text and disallow checkins that have changed the spec in
>incompatible ways? 

Actually (following up on my own post) how does a traditional CM tool
make sure the Ada body matches the interface file? Does it actually
run some external tool at checkin time to make sure the equivalence
hasn't been broken?  I mean, if I edit the return type of a function
in the body and not the spec in Ada, how does the CM tool know it won't
compile next time someone checks it out?

It seems to me that if you've solved this problem, you can use exactly
the same approach to solve the problem for Eiffel.