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,f66d11aeda114c52
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Building blocks (Was: Design By Contract)
Date: 1997/09/11
Message-ID: <dewar.873989505@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 271687800
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-09-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Brian Rogoff complained, quite rightly, to me as quoted below. Sorry for
the mistake in attributions, it is often easy to get confused, and especially
to borrow confusion. Too bad this is not all automated :-)

--
Brian's msg:

Please be careful with attributions, I never wrote that, that was Paul
Johnson! I wrote a rebuttal that Matthew Heaney carelessly edited in his
own follow-up.

-- Brian

On 10 Sep 1997, Robert Dewar wrote:

> Brian Rogoff said
>
> <<>>In fact the Eiffel exception mechanism is superior to the Ada one
> >> because it is built on a theoretical model of software engineering.>>
>
> This is one of the more absurd statements in what is unfortunately becoming
> a rather tedious thread. First of all, the idea that being "built on
> *a* (i.e. any old) theoretical model of software engineering" is per se
> a good thing is a bit laughable.
>
> Second, of course the Ada exception mechanism is build on such a model
> also -- indeed it *is* a model itself!
>
> Rather thank make vague religeous statements like this which have
> zero meaning, say EXACTLY what technical point you are trying to make.