Re: Typing in Ada

[Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org>]

Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> Wes Groleau wrote:
> 
>> In a way, you are correct.  But why must we put
>> so much effort into preventing behavior that is
>> not prohibited just because it is not required?
> 
> There are two issues here.  The first I just posted about.  If the 
> requirements document is meaningful and maintained, the question about 
> 101 Apples needs to get asked, and answered.

I wholeheartedly agree that the code should reflect the requirements
documents whenever feasible. (Also that systems engineers should use 
abstractions and stop filling requirements documents with implementation
details, but that's a different soapbox!)

And your "trick" which

> ... allows software range checking to be omitted at least on the upper 
> bound, and the real upper bound is set to whatever the hardware supports 
> for the type chosen by the compiler for Required_Apples.

is excellent and definitely

... makes clear what the requirement being satisfied is.

My side rant was inspired by the number of times I have
fixed defects and/or supported "new" requirements by stripping
out code which had no value beyond preventing the program from
exceeding its perceived requirements.  :-)

-- 
Wes Groleau

    A UNIX signature isn't a return address, it's the ASCII equivalent
    of a black velvet clown painting.  It's a rectangle of carets
    surrounding a quote from a literary giant of weeniedom like
    Heinlein or Dr. Who.
                                 -- Chris Maeda

    Ha, ha, Dr. ..... Who's Chris Maeda?
                                 -- Wes Groleau