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: 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: nospam@thanks.com.au (Don Harrison) Subject: Re: Interface/Implementation (was Re: Design by Contract) Date: 1997/09/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 273105259 Sender: news@syd.csa.com.au References: Reply-To: nospam@thanks.com.au X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dev50 Organization: CSC Australia, Sydney Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Patrick Doyle wrote: :In article , :Don Harrison wrote: :> :>Matthew Heaney wrote: :> :>:This is not unlike saying that "strong typing" is a helpful limitation, :>:but a limitation nonetheless. :> :>I think this is a poor analogy. While strong typing delivers some obvious :>benefits, I don't think the same can be said of forced dependency ordering. : :I think it's a fine analogy, and it's true. It *is* a helpful limitation. If you say so. That's not my experience. Frankly, if I were to have forced dependency ordering inflicted on me but could choose which scheme, I would choose *reverse* dependency ordering. At least then I could read listings in a sensible order - from high-level to low-level. Don. (Reverse to reply) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Don Harrison au.com.csa.syd@donh