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: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
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
From: nospam@thanks.com.au (Don Harrison)
Subject: Re: Interface/Implementation (was Re: Design by Contract)
Date: 1997/09/17
Message-ID: <EGMrnI.AIv@syd.csa.com.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 273146944
Sender: news@syd.csa.com.au
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dev50
References: <dewar.874035031@merv>
Organization: CSC Australia, Sydney
Reply-To: nospam@thanks.com.au
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel
Date: 1997-09-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Dewar wrote:

:Samuel Mize says
:
:<<As several people (including Don) have pointed out, if you try to
:read an Ada unit with a lot of sub-procedures, you wind up reading
:it from the end backward.>>
:
:Once again, I do not know what this is about. I can imagine someone
:deliberately ordering a program so that it has to be read from the
:end backward, but I thankfully never encountered an Ada program
:written this way, and the suggestion that this is somehow required
:in Ada is entirely bogus.

Nonsense! It's dictated by the language unless you specifically *override*
it by providing redundant information.


Tucker Taft wrote:

:It is only if you are too lazy to write both a spec and a body that 
:you push the reader into "backwards" reading.

It's only laziness to the extent that the developer has to waste time and 
effort providing and maintaining redundant information. In my book, that's 
*justifiable* laziness.

IMO, its rarely the "right" thing to compromise uniqueness even if consistency 
between the two is guaranteed by the compiler, as it is here. On rare 
occasions, it's hard to avoid duplicating information but this isn't one of 
them, IMHO.


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