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: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Interface/Implementation (was Re: Design by Contract)
Date: 1997/09/12
Message-ID: <dewar.874081643@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 272005935
References: <EGAqKI.GsE.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com> <EGBH6u.Ar2@syd.csa.com.au>
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: <comp.lang.ada>


Don said

<<Good idea. Although I consider it a workaround, it effectively deals with
the problem. Thanks.>>

It's not AT ALL a work around. The utility of this approach is 
fundamental.

In normal good Ada practice, even though the language does not require it,
one always has separate specs for all sbprograms.


Why?

Simple, because the spec is the anchor point for the high level coments
that provide sufficient detail (but no more detail than that) for a client
to make use of the subprogram. 

Yes, you could write the comments without a copy of the subprogram
specification, but in practice, the comments will refer to the specification
so it makes excellent sense to have a copy of the spec right there.

This is not a work around, it is standard Ada style. To say it is a workaround
is like saying that in C it is a work around to have to declare int and
float separately because in mathematics they are both numbers (or choose all
sorts of other silly analogies :-)