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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID 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: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: doylep@ecf.toronto.edu (Patrick Doyle) Subject: Re: Interface/Implementation (was Re: Design by Contract) Date: 1997/08/30 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 269075185 Sender: news@ecf.toronto.edu (News Administrator) References: <34046FAD.52BFA1D7@eiffel.com> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: skule.ecf Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-08-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Jon S Anthony wrote: >In article doylep@ecf.toronto.edu (Patrick Doyle) writes: > >> Jon S Anthony wrote: >> > >> >IMO, the spec. is much more important for design than the body and so >> >having automated support spec.->implementation is much more >> >appropriate than having automated support implementation->spec. >> >> I don't know if spec is more important than implementation, but >> that's another debate... > >No it is not "another debate" - it is simply my opinion, as noted. That's funny, I thought these newsgroups were for discussion. >That's part of the problem here - I've (and probably loads of others) >already thought these issues through and have made up my mind after >carefully weighing the various options. Overall, my view is that the >Eiffel way is significantly less expressive and capable than the Ada >way. Period. End of story for me. I'm more than willing to discuss >the various characteristics of each and the various tradeoffs in >objective fashion - but for "value judgements", I've already >deliberated and made them. And this means we can't debate things any more? >> As for your comment above, for Eiffel in particular one would put >> spec and implementation in the same file, and to be able to extract >> spec at will. Thus, it's not a case of implementation -> spec so >> much as implementation+spec -> spec. > >A rose by any other name Patrick. Not at all. Having a tool which "guesses" the spec from the implementation is dangerous. But simply extracting the existing spec from a spec+implementation document is a trivial process which it easily automated. >> In other words, don't think that Eiffel encourages the >> implementation to drive the specification (which would indeed be a >> bad thing). It simple mixes the two into the same file and provides >> tools to separate them again. > >Fine. And I do. And IMO, the evidence is there with enough authority >to convince me of this. And you'll make no effort to convince me I'm wrong? Then why to you participate in newsgroups? -PD -- -- Patrick Doyle doylep@ecf.utoronto.ca