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: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Interface/Implementation (was Re: Design by Contract)
Date: 1997/09/11
Message-ID: <dewar.874035031@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 271781322
References: <mheaney-ya023680000709972001170001@news.ni.net>
 <EG9y0E.C65@syd.csa.com.au> <3416CA7D.50A@link.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel
Date: 1997-09-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Samuel Mize says

<<As several people (including Don) have pointed out, if you try to
read an Ada unit with a lot of sub-procedures, you wind up reading
it from the end backward.>>

Once again, I do not know what this is about. I can imagine someone
deliberately ordering a program so that it has to be read from the
end backward, but I thankfully never encountered an Ada program
written this way, and the suggestion that this is somehow required
in Ada is entirely bogus.