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: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: doylep@ecf.toronto.edu (Patrick Doyle) Subject: Re: Interface/Implementation (was Re: Design by Contract) Date: 1997/09/06 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 270147675 X-Nntp-Posting-Host: skule.ecf Sender: news@ecf.toronto.edu (News Administrator) References: <340F39E3.4B71@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> <34103462.1D86@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <34103462.1D86@pseserv3.fw.hac.com>, W. Wesley Groleau x4923 wrote: > >Patrick Doyle wrote: >> >> Being the one who seems to be pursuing this quest, I'll explain >> myself. > >Well, your rationale for the question is valid. I was responding >to those who want to deny that a good feature language X is not >an advantage because language Y can accomplish the same thing by >an unintended use of features it DOES have. Those are the folks >that first brought up the idea. My argument is that Eiffel already has a facility to freeze an interface. In other words, Ada's extra interface file can be simulated in Eiffel with *no extra effort* than is required in Ada. (BTW, I'm starting to be convinced that the extra interface file is a Good Thing, but I'm not fully decided just yet... :-) >It happens on the Ada side, too. "Multiple inheritance is not >important because we can simulate it this way." What the Ada advocate >should say is one of (1) "We think MI is bad because" OR (2) "We >looked at the _goal_ of multiple inheritance and decided that _goal_ >could be better acheived by..." OR (3) "OK, we'll let you have that >as an advantage of your language." Or (4) "Here's a simple elegant way to get all the benefits if MI using existing Ada techniques". -PD -- -- Patrick Doyle doylep@ecf.utoronto.ca