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: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 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: donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison) Subject: Re: Safety-critical development in Ada and Eiffel Date: 1997/07/25 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 258664826 Sender: news@syd.csa.com.au X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dev50 References: <33D6A453.A9C@flash.net> Organization: CSC Australia, Sydney Reply-To: donh@syd.csa.com.au Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-07-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ken Garlington wrote: :However, if this is an actor task, there is no contract (in any :language; :it would not be called explicitly by other parts of the application). If :it :is an agent or server task, the comment shown above would be associated :in :the task specification with the particular entry(ies) it affected. In SCOOP, there is no concept of explicit active and passive objects. This is an atificial distinction which is neither necessary nor desirable (in an OO concurrency model). For the reasoning behind this, see "Object-oriented Software Construction" 2nd ed. - "Active objects" (P. 957). Don. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Don Harrison donh@syd.csa.com.au