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: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Interface/Implementation (was Re: Design by Contract)
Date: 1997/09/10
Message-ID: <dewar.873938821@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 271464199
References: <dewar.873630067@merv> <EG8CAy.B21@syd.csa.com.au>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel
Date: 1997-09-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Don Harrison says

<<While the order of elements previously declared in the spec is free, the
order of elements declared in the body is not, which, though explicable, is
inconsistent.>>

No, it is completely consistent. What you do in the body is to first
declare the specs of all subprograms, and then the sbprograms may be
declared in any order and reference one another. You may complain
about the scheme if you like, but it is certainly totally consistent.
The one rule is that you must declare a subprogram (provide the spec)
before you use it, and before you provide the body.