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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,5add429c86f59001
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada vs Eiffel - Ada programmer approach
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 00:55:17 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <88f38fe3-01ec-407f-b7b6-84a1d10de7f1@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <405b5054-4c8f-4e16-9ea8-503a9b9f976e@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
	<4A19765C.608@obry.net>
 <8105b65f-4de9-4653-b43a-d55ee33f072d@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
	<a924d96e-17b8-4573-ae86-3ccc924d21c8@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 153.98.68.197
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1244102117 23384 127.0.0.1 (4 Jun 2009 07:55:17
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 07:55:17 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=153.98.68.197;
	posting-account=pcLQNgkAAAD9TrXkhkIgiY6-MDtJjIlC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.0.10)
	Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6208
Date: 2009-06-04T00:55:17-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Jun 4, 9:30=A0am, Hibou57 (Yannick Duch=EAne)
<yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> On 26 mai, 15:37, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
>
> > [...] Ada's pragma Assert provides what I
> > need in these (rare) cases =A0because I can put such pragmas in the
> > middle of a subprogram, for example.
>
> > --
> > Ludovic Brenta.
>
> This is not the same as Eiffel assertions. Eiffel's assertions are
> aware of the invokation contexte. Let say you have a class C and a
> method M and the class C has an invariant I. Then, if a client invoks
> M, the invariant will be checked before M returns. That's Ok, this is
> the same as with "in code assertions". But if M is invoked by anoher
> method of the class, i.e. as an implementation method (this is very
> common to use a public method for internal purpose), you will have
> this : the client of C invok a method M2 which in turn will invok M
> (the client may or may not know about it). In this context, the class
> invariant will obviously be checked before returning from M2, but *it
> will not be check before return from M*.
>
> That is beceause M is allowed to left the class invariant in an
> illegal state, as it may be the sole responsability of M2.
>
> So, Eiffel's assertions are not the same as "in code assertions".
> Eiffel's assertions are well formalized.

I think my point was precisely that Ada assertions were different from
Eiffel's. I like the fact that, in Ada, I can place assertions in the
middle of a complex subprogram; this is not possible Eiffel, as you
aptly described. I agree that Eiffel's assertions are well-defined but
my argument is that they are less useful and more diffucult to use in
practice than the beauty of the design suggests.

--
Ludovic Brenta.