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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,29d8139471e3f53e X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!85.214.198.2.MISMATCH!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "J-P. Rosen" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Preventing type extensions Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:01:15 +0200 Organization: Adalog Message-ID: References: <87iq2bfenl.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <874odv9npv.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <87y6b7cedd.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <66a3704c-54f9-4f04-8860-aa12f516134b@t3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <87d3sib44t.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <134q4k2ly2pf4$.17nlv1q6q5ivo.dlg@40tude.net> <4c8dec8e$0$6990$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <8f6cceFrv2U1@mid.individual.net> <135a7dc9-3943-45e4-884b-3cc6bce3db0a@q18g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> <81799aab-a2e8-4390-8f42-abceaa5fc032@m1g2000vbh.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:01:28 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="NnUeFCqNZ0jpIYDukgk1kA"; logging-data="10163"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/7HKOZEti/yGujdOKgB6XD" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 In-Reply-To: <81799aab-a2e8-4390-8f42-abceaa5fc032@m1g2000vbh.googlegroups.com> Cancel-Lock: sha1:zkXKdE1qAgeW6wbeGaIusYxCZB4= Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14186 Date: 2010-09-22T10:01:15+02:00 List-Id: 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