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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,e01bd86884246855 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,fb1663c3ca80b502 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Veli-Pekka Nousiainen" Subject: Re: Interresting thread in comp.lang.eiffel Date: 2000/07/18 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 647775805 References: <8ipvnj$inc$1@wanadoo.fr> <8j67p8$afd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <395886DA.CCE008D2@deepthought.com.au> <3958B07B.18A5BB8C@acm.com> <395A0ECA.940560D1@acm.com> <8jd4bb$na7$1@toralf.uib.no> <8jfabb$1d8$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8jhq0m$30u5$1@toralf.uib.no> <8jt4j7$19hpk$1@ID-9852.news.cis.dfn.de> <3963CDDE.3E8FB644@earthlink.net> <3963DEBF.79C40BF1@eiffel.com> <2LS85.6100$7%3.493920@news.flash.net> <8k5aru$1odtq$1@ID-9852.news.cis.dfn.de> <8k8pk2$20cab$1@ID-9852.news.cis.dfn.de> <_dS95.9945$7%3.666180@news.flash.net> <396C9C7F.D9B20E5F@baesystems.com> X-Priority: 3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4029.2901 X-Trace: read2.inet.fi 963928666 213.28.8.37 (Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:57:46 EET DST) Organization: Sonera corp Internet services X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Reply-To: "Veli-Pekka Nousiainen" NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:57:46 EET DST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 2000-07-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "David Gillon" wrote in message news:396C9C7F.D9B20E5F@baesystems.com... X ROFLOL > what was wanted. Think Dilbert 1 trying to have a technical discussion > with Dilbert 2 by passing verbal messages through ten layers of pointy > haired bosses each.... The assumption that this would logically result The software inheritance layers are not what you were talking about?! VPN > in the contractor 'gladly complying' doesn't necessarily reflect what > happens in reality. And this is without even considering the security > and clearance issues many such projects have to deal with. > > One thing I'm still waiting to hear in this discussion is how Eiffel > would handle a temporal constraint of the type 'Signal A will be updated > with its new value within 2.5 ms of a change to any of its source > inputs'. > > -- > > David Gillon