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,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,c52c30d32b866eae X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,2ea02452876a15e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,c52c30d32b866eae X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison) Subject: Re: Real OO Date: 1996/05/15 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 155078766 sender: news@assip.csasyd.oz references: organization: CSC Australia reply-to: donh@syd.csa.com.au newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object Date: 1996-05-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Steve Tynor writes: :In article bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) writes: : :| Don Harrison wrote: :| >Someone correct me if wrong, but in the contracting scheme of things, :| >the client would need to be aware of *all* the requisite conditions that :| >make a call legal, irrespective of whether they pertain to the target of the :| >call or another object. In this sense, all preconditions are client-oriented. :| :| I believe that in Eiffel, a precondition can refer to a private data :| item, of which the client knows nothing. : :In fact, such a precondition would be a violation of the VAPE validity :rule (section 9.8, ETL). Our compiler treats this as only a Warning :(since there are several PD libraries that use this construct), though :technically it should be an Error. Thanks. That's what I was thinking of (was too slack to look it up). :=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= :Eiffel: Accept no substitutes. : :Steve Tynor Email: Steve.Tynor@atlanta.twr.com :Tower Technology WWW: http://www.twr.com/ /// Don. (o o) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=oOO=-(_)-=OOo=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Don Harrison donh@syd.csa.com.au