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: 103376,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public From: doylep@ecf.toronto.edu (Patrick Doyle) Subject: Re: Design By Contract Date: 1997/09/01 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 269339810 Sender: news@ecf.toronto.edu (News Administrator) References: <3403940F.4154@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: skule.ecf Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Jon S Anthony wrote: >In article doylep@ecf.toronto.edu (Patrick Doyle) writes: > >> I'm afraid I don't know what your point is. But let me >> ask you this: Do you think providing accessor functions is >> OK? If so, what's the difference between accessors and the >> Eiffel approach? If not, why? > >Yes, (of course) providing accessor functions is OK. The differences >here are so trivial as to not be worth arguing about. Which is >probably the most important point here. Yes, but enlighten me. What are these trivial differences? I promise I won't laugh. :-) -PD -- -- Patrick Doyle doylep@ecf.utoronto.ca