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: paul.johnson@gecm.com (Paul Johnson) Subject: Re: Separation of IF and Imp: process issue? Date: 1997/09/10 Message-ID: <5v5i3c$h62$1@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 271220076 References: <33E9ADE9.4709@flash.net> <5upe9k$7he@newshub.atmnet.net> <5utag9$o6s@newshub.atmnet.net> <5v1gua$fkk@newshub.atmnet.net> <5v4093$of7@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <5v4093$of7@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU says... > But if it is not _immediately obvious_ to those >reviewing a change which parts of the change are interface changes, >then they may not realize the significance of those parts, and they may >easily I assume you were about to say "may easily miss it". This is not a problem for Eiffel programmers. The interface and implementation are visually very distinct in the class text. Roughly speaking, implementation is anything in "do" or "once" clauses, and any features clauses with restricted export. Interface is everything else. >One approach that might work would be for the CM tool to require >the log message accompanying a change to specify which interfaces >had been modified, and for the tool to verify that only those >interfaces had changed. But I'll bet most Eiffel developers >don't use a CM tool with that sort of support. As I said elsewhere, this is probably because Eiffel programmers don't actually need this level of CM support. Simple inspection and testing seems to do perfectly well. The point of this thread is that if you program in Eiffel but still want this kind of CM support, you can have it by writing a few lines of Perl. 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.