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: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Interface/Implementation (was Re: Design by Contract) Date: 1997/08/29 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 268964899 Distribution: world References: <34046FAD.52BFA1D7@eiffel.com> <34059557.37C0@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> Organization: PSINet Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-08-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article doylep@ecf.toronto.edu (Patrick Doyle) writes: > Jon S Anthony wrote: > > > >IMO, the spec. is much more important for design than the body and so > >having automated support spec.->implementation is much more > >appropriate than having automated support implementation->spec. > > I don't know if spec is more important than implementation, but > that's another debate... No it is not "another debate" - it is simply my opinion, as noted. That's part of the problem here - I've (and probably loads of others) already thought these issues through and have made up my mind after carefully weighing the various options. Overall, my view is that the Eiffel way is significantly less expressive and capable than the Ada way. Period. End of story for me. I'm more than willing to discuss the various characteristics of each and the various tradeoffs in objective fashion - but for "value judgements", I've already deliberated and made them. > As for your comment above, for Eiffel in particular one would put > spec and implementation in the same file, and to be able to extract > spec at will. Thus, it's not a case of implementation -> spec so > much as implementation+spec -> spec. A rose by any other name Patrick. > In other words, don't think that Eiffel encourages the > implementation to drive the specification (which would indeed be a > bad thing). It simple mixes the two into the same file and provides > tools to separate them again. Fine. And I do. And IMO, the evidence is there with enough authority to convince me of this. /Jon -- Jon Anthony OMI, Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383 "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari