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,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: paul.johnson@gecm.com (Paul Johnson) Subject: Re: Design By Contract Date: 1997/09/09 Message-ID: <5v34dp$l7u$3@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 270934433 References: Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-09-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , nickle@compulink.co.uk says... > >> These are wise words. On the other hand I would hold that a language with >> direct support for something is better for that thing than a language which >> requires some idiom. > >There are some exceptions to this. I agree with you on MI for example, but if the >idiom is particularly easy to express or occurs rarely, then there is no need >to extend the language to cope. Having, somewhere in the language specification, >a note on the idiom helps, because at least the solution is standard. Absolutely. I was careful in my original posting to say that direct support makes a language better *for that thing*. Of course an extra feature makes the language worse for other things. This is the balance that must be struck. Paul. -- Paul Johnson | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. | +44 1245 242244 +-----------+-----------------------------------------+ Work: | You are lost in a twisty maze of little Home: | standards, all different.