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: fac41,28a5102a0b8c2240,start X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,28a5102a0b8c2240,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: nospam@thanks.com.au (Don Harrison) Subject: Re: Design by Contract Date: 1997/08/29 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 268876474 Sender: news@syd.csa.com.au References: <349224633wnr@eiffel.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: nospam@thanks.com.au X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dev50 Organization: CSC Australia, Sydney Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-08-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Roger Browne wrote: :"W. Wesley Groleau x4923" writes: : :> Suppose Ada added Eiffel assertions and Eiffel added separate :> compilation of specs. Or even some sort of automated control that :> prevented changing contract without special privilege. : :No change is required to Eiffel to enable project managers to keep a hold of :the specs whilst letting programmers loose on the implementation. : :Simply code the spec as abstract classes in separate (locked) files and let :the programmers write the concrete implementation in child classes. I tend to think deferred classes are not the proper analogue of Ada package specifications. Ada package specs, unlike Eiffel deferred classes exist for every module, so a better analogue for this module concept may be the class short form. Deferred classes (specifically, the type aspects of them) are more analogous to Ada abstact types, IMO. Don. (Reverse to reply) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Don Harrison au.com.csa.syd@donh