Re: Preventing type extensions

["J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr>]

Le 21/09/2010 18:18, Cyrille a �crit :
>> The one that forbids redispatching in favour of class-wide operations.
>> This can be done only in Ada, and can be a big plus for testing.
> 
> Well, I don't see anything unique to Ada in that respect except
> terminology. In term of capabilities with regard to dispatching, at
> least.
Ada is unique in that you can have true methods (aka primitive
operations) that belong to a specific type, and class-wide operations
that are unique for a whole subtree. Because they are unique, coverage
testing drops from N to 1.

>> For inlining, I was referring to the corresponding chapter of OOTiA
> 
> That's what I supposed.... There is little to be reused in that part
> of the document...
I agree that there is nothing here specific to OO. However, inlining is
a problem when you need level A (code) coverage, because it creates
often dead code or hard to test paths.

> It is not the case. There is very little of OOTiA left in the OO
> supplement. It was an input to the process but the subcommittee soon
> realized that little could be reused. For one thing, most of the
> material is at the level of "coding standard" material and thus not at
> the right level for a standard such as DO-178.
Sure. I would expect DO-178C to be more objectives-driven, while the
OOTiA was more about processes and issues. Can't OOTiA be considered as
a document that explores possible ways to achieve the objectives of DO-178C?

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Adalog a d�m�nag� / Adalog has moved:
2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX
Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00