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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ADDR_WS,
	INVALID_MSGID,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fac41,e01bd86884246855
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fb1663c3ca80b502
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Joachim Durchholz" <joachim dot durchholz@halstenbach.com>
Subject: Re: Design by Contract (was Re: Interesting thread in
 comp.lang.eiffel)
Date: 2000/07/16
Message-ID: <8kt1eb$34jh1$1@ID-9852.news.cis.dfn.de>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 647067046
References: <8ipvnj$inc$1@wanadoo.fr> <8j67p8$afd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <slrn8leffq.ebq.gisle@spurv.ii.uib.no> <395886DA.CCE008D2@deepthought.com.au>
 <3958B07B.18A5BB8C@acm.com> <y1d65.620$7%3.33446@news.flash.net>
 <395A0ECA.940560D1@acm.com> <8jd4bb$na7$1@toralf.uib.no>
 <8jfabb$1d8$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8jhq0m$30u5$1@toralf.uib.no>
 <8jt4j7$19hpk$1@ID-9852.news.cis.dfn.de> <3963CDDE.3E8FB644@earthlink.net>
 <3963DEBF.79C40BF1@eiffel.com> <396502D2.BD8A42E7@earthlink.net>
 <39654639.B3760EF2@eiffel.com> <i4k95.7512$7%3.571616@news.flash.net>
 <oqog45g1j0.fsf@premise.demon.co.uk> <85Fa5.11419$7%3.818927@news.flash.net>
 <01HW.B591811303737A0605DE478C@news.pacbell.net> <396C7F14.563F1BA4@lmco.com>
 <8kl0r6$2lp6o$1@ID-9852.news.cis.dfn.de>
 <01HW.B59443DD000A71F808C44DCC@news.pacbell.net>
X-Priority: 3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 963774731 3296801 195.190.10.210 (16 [9852])
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Reply-To: "Joachim Durchholz" <joachim.durchholz@halstenbach.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel
Date: 2000-07-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

David Kristola <David95037@See-My.Sig> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:12:53 -0700, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
>
> > or
> >   find_minimum_in (h: HEAP)
> >   require
> >     not h.is_empty
>
> Depending on the implementation of the heap, this too would
> probably cause some sort of exception to be raised if the
> heap were empty.

The difference is that the exception will happen before the routine is
even called. The responsibility for the exception will clearly be the
caller's. If the exception happens somewhere inside the routine, you
need another analysis stept to find out which part of the code is really
responsible for the problem.

Regards,
Joachim
--
This is not an official statement from my employer or from NICE.
Reply-to address changed to discourage unsolicited advertisements.