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: 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: doylep@ecf.toronto.edu (Patrick Doyle) Subject: Re: Separation of IF and Imp: process issue? Date: 1997/09/10 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 271480217 Sender: news@ecf.toronto.edu (News Administrator) References: <33E9ADE9.4709@flash.net> <5v2k2n$1cfu$2@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu> <5v4095$h62@newshub.atmnet.net> 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: 1997-09-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Jon S Anthony wrote: > >In article <5v4095$h62@newshub.atmnet.net> dnew@zloty.fv.com (Darren New) writes: > >> And it's trivial to write a script that takes the short form of an Eiffel >> class and checks it against the CM'ed short form. If you forget to run >> this, you can have a $1 fine. :-) >> >> My point is that having the spec and implementation in the same file >> is *not* any more of a handicap for Eiffel than having to run the >> compiler to check the body against the spec is in Ada. > >??? By your own description above, the handicap is having to hack the >scripts and glue them together in obvious non standard ways. Shrug. These "scripts" could be tools which are included with the compiler. You use a tool to make sure the interface is not altered. We could do the same. >> Of course, Eiffel then gives you the ability to use abstract classes as >> specs as well, but that's a different discussion. > >No, that's just basically wrong. Abstract classes are like abstract >types in Ada, not specs. The short form is the analogue of the spec. Where have you been, Jon? We've been going over this for at least a week now, and I (among others, I hope :-) disagree, and you know that. So to make this statement with no "I think" or "IMHO" in front of it seems a bit careless to me. Is your opinion (above) right because you think it is? -PD -- -- Patrick Doyle doylep@ecf.utoronto.ca