help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "G.B." <bauhaus@notmyhomepage.invalid>
Subject: Re: Contracts in generic formal subprogram
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 07:56:45 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <u12squ$2j3h0$> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <u0r72o$16jtj$>

On 08.04.23 10:02, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 2023-04-08 09:00, mockturtle wrote:
>> Should the actual subprogram specify the same contract? I am not sure (and I guess this could be a stumbling block for the adoption of this idea).
> The general principle of substitutability is that the preconditions can be weakened, the postoconditions can be strengthened.

Side track: "weak" and "strong" alone sounding like a valuation to the
uninitiated, but neither technical nor precise; and the "objects" of
comparison of sets of conditions being implicit; and the ARM not
defining a technical term for these adjectives unless weak ordering

If these adjectives induce confusion, can they be avoided? E.g., by
instead mentioning the sets of Pre- and Post-conditions of those
actual/formal/overriding subprograms. I guess that super- and subset
relations will permit helpfully defining an ordering to be understood
(in general, if not in the ARM).

  reply	other threads:[~2023-04-11  5:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-04-08  7:00 Contracts in generic formal subprogram mockturtle
2023-04-08  8:02 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2023-04-11  5:56   ` G.B. [this message]
2023-04-11 12:03     ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2023-04-12  2:18       ` Spiros Bousbouras
2023-04-12  3:37         ` Spiros Bousbouras
2023-04-12  6:49           ` Niklas Holsti
2023-04-12  7:30           ` G.B.
2023-04-12 12:29           ` Ben Bacarisse
2023-04-13  6:27         ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2023-04-08  9:09 ` Randy Brukardt
2023-04-08 16:48 ` Simon Wright
2023-04-08 17:27   ` mockturtle
replies disabled

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox