Re: The disturbing myth of Eiffel portability

[donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison)]

Piercarlo Grandi writes:

:Well, only in Eiffel 3, which is a rather different language from Eiffel
:(despite backwards similarity); and even in Eiffel 3, they are a bit
:more special than user defined types.
:
:  BTW, it's clear that different people mean different things with
:  ``Eiffel''; the various versions of the language are rather
:  different. The same applies to ``Ada'', ``C'', ``FORTRAN'' and also to
:  ``C++'', where one never really knows _which_ version of the language
:  is being discussed, for while for example for Ada and C and FORTRAN
:  there is a customary indication of version (Ada 83 and Ada 95, C and
:  ANSI C, FORTRAN 66, FORTRAN 77, ...) I have very rarely seen any usage
:  of the C++ 1.0, C++ 2.x, C++ 3.x or C++ draft ISO @ [date] labels. In
:  part this is because C++ implementations often implement bits from
:  several versions...

I think you'll find that when people refer to languages without stating which 
version, they are typically referring to the current incarnation. They will
typically only mention a specific version if distinguishing between them
(usually to update their knowledge). In the case of "Eiffel", they usually mean
Eiffel 3. If they mean OOSC Eiffel, they are graciously informed that some
things have changed since then. :)


Don.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Don Harrison             donh@syd.csa.com.au