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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2ff5c149712ec0eb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!213.200.89.82.MISMATCH!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Ada Interfaces and the Liskov Substitution Principle
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705232101220.20072@th.informatik.uni-mannheim.de>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 09:39:19 +0200
Message-ID: <j9efcq4r6us8.1dea2feb0ngd3$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 May 2007 09:37:12 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 5506b7a6.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=ZOHl3=G8]Q>L2C_`koXfC5McF=Q^Z^V384Fo<]lROoR1Fl8W>\BH3Y2I?:ad:b3M79DNcfSJ;bb[5FCTGGVUmh?4LK[5LiR>kg2IQY]_o=6>80
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15899
Date: 2007-05-24T09:37:12+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:47:32 +0200, Stefan Lucks wrote:

> to me, it seems as if Ada 2005 is bluntly violating the Liskov 
> Substitution Prinicple.

Huh, as well as Ada 83 did. There is no need in much code, just write

   subtype Non_LSP_Subtype is String (1..80);

or

   subtype Positive is Integer range 1..Integer'Last;

or, for that matter  "constant", "in", "out", "not null", etc. All these
are examples of non-LSP subtypes.

> My understanding of the Liskov substitution principle, see
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liskov_substitution_principle
> is that as Partens.Parent implicitely (by not being limited) provides 
> certain primitve operations, such as ":=" and "=", and Stepchild.Object 
> takes away these primitive operations,

It is illegal, but if it were legal, then yes, disallowing operations
breaks LSP. However, see above, mere passing a variable as "in" does it as
well in the sense that "in T" is not an LSP-subtype of T.

> What do you guys think about this?

LPS is totally irrelevant as long as substitutability violation can be
detected at compile time. This is why "constant" does not worry anybody. A
method disallowing is perfectly OK, if you cannot call it.

LSP violation becomes a problem when substitutability is indeterminable
until run-time. In may cases we still choose to live with that. Constrained
Ada subtypes is an example of. Another is multi-methods Foo (X, Y : T),
when called on different children of T. In such cases Ada adds
Constraint_Error to the interface of each subprogram and things become
"substitutable" again.

LSP violation is catastrophic when undetected. I think that renaming array
objects with changing bounds falls under this category. (Apart from
"unchecked" stuff)

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de