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: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: nospam@thanks.com.au (Don Harrison)
Subject: Re: Interface/Implementation (was Re: Design by Contract)
Date: 1997/09/11
Message-ID: <EGByD3.MGw@syd.csa.com.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 271782677
Sender: news@syd.csa.com.au
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dev50
References: <dewar.873938821@merv>
Organization: CSC Australia, Sydney
Reply-To: nospam@thanks.com.au
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel
Date: 1997-09-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Dewar wrote:

:Don Harrison says
:
:<<While the order of elements previously declared in the spec is free, the
:order of elements declared in the body is not, which, though explicable, is
:inconsistent.>>
:
:No, it is completely consistent. What you do in the body is to first
:declare the specs of all subprograms, and then the sbprograms may be
:declared in any order and reference one another. You may complain
:about the scheme if you like, but it is certainly totally consistent.
:The one rule is that you must declare a subprogram (provide the spec)
:before you use it, and before you provide the body.

I think you're getting your contexts confused here. My comment was made in 
the specific context of *no* prior declarations.


Don.                     (Reverse to reply)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Don Harrison             au.com.csa.syd@donh