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: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Interface/Implementation (was Re: Design by Contract) Date: 1997/09/12 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 271951644 References: Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Patrick says <> I find this question a bit amazing. Normally I would not expect anyone who is sufficiently familiar with the separation of spec and implementation to ask it. Of course the computer can derive the bare bones details about a spec, e.g. the syntax of the subprogram declaration, from the body, but it most certainly cannot derive automatically appropriate high level comments that provide the necessary information for a client to use the subprogram. Certainly no Ada programmer would ever ask this question, the idea of deriving specifications automatically from implementations is fundamentally upside-down!