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: 103376,1e5c102037393131 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ehud Lamm Subject: Re: Assertions Date: 1999/05/21 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 480565728 References: <3736D243.1EEBF1AB@globalnet.co.uk> <3736F549.E3DDCDEB@pwfl.com> <7h83lc$rd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3739CECA.6A49865B@averstar.com> <7hqe7m$q7i@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com> <3742eba6@eeyore.callnetuk.com> <7hv6bb$1l9@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <7i2f8a$uki$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Organization: The hebrew University of Jerusalem Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-05-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Fri, 21 May 1999, Robert Dewar wrote: > But to think that Ada dismissed DBC just because it did not > adopt the particular partial assertion language facilities > of Eiffel misses the point I think. > > Sure. But still two points. 1) I was responding to a claim that the issue of DBC was dicussed in the Ada95 design process. I just wondered whether any documents from this dicussion may be available. 2) I think having language support for DBC is a good thing. (I am not advoacting Eiffel, just the general claim.) It is much cleaner, more readable and most reliable to declare some set of assertions as being the invariant of an ADt, than to explicitly code a check for them at the end (etc.) of each routine that updates the ADT. Don't you agree? Sure, language support is not essential for DBC. But I think it has many advantages. Ehud Lamm mslamm@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il