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,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Design By Contract Date: 1997/09/08 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 270789866 References: <341041A6.E45B6425@calfp.co.uk> Distribution: world Organization: PSINet Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <341041A6.E45B6425@calfp.co.uk> Nick Leaton writes: > > Eiffel's selective export is really much more like the granularity you > > get (and the attendant problems from) C++ friendship. > > Jon, What are the problems? I'm well aware with the issues that > arise in C++, particularly with the all or nothing nature of C++ > friendship. It is not as if you have to reveal your > implementation. That's was not the issue I had in mind, it was more the "clairvoyance" problem of export for future clients. But really, Eiffel has a reasonable way around that which does not fall victim to the C++ problem. > Selective revealing of interface I presume is OK, so > what mechanism would you provide in its place? For something like Eiffel (where everything is defined via inheritance based classification), I think the solution provided is reasonable. /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