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,c5ca2cbae60e9fee
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>
Subject: Re: OO puzzle
Date: 1999/12/29
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.9912292100270.8540-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 566383854
References: 
 <Pine.A41.3.96-heb-2.07.991222103646.28794B-100000@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il>
 <386102F6.56CEFA22@averstar.com> <83sq9g$5ml$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 946530385 215 bpr@206.184.139.136
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-12-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, Ehud Lamm wrote:
> This issue of system validity is discussed in the "Eiffel the language"
> book, from which I took the examples. If any one is interested in
> looking it up. This is indeed the heart of this issue.

Just to refresh my memory, do any real Eiffel compilers do system validity
checking, or deal with "polymorphic catcalls" as decribed recently by
Meyer, or do all compilers just punt on this issue? 

Even the theoretical checks require global analysis right? This doesn't
sit well with the goal of separate compilation. 

Parameter covariance seemed like a huge mistake of the Eiffel design to
me. Is it all fixed and working now?

-- Brian