Dieter Maurer wrote:
(snip)
Let me stress my point of view. Maybe, we are not too far away
from one another:
* I like clear specifications (as you do)
Yup.
* The specification has more value, when its implementations
adhere to it (you probably will agree).
Well, not quite.
Jim Fulton wrote:
It is a very good thing to have the specification very near
to the implementation -- as a permanent guide to the
implementor.
Firtunately, modern displays allow multiple side-by-side
windows. ;)
G400, two displays :-)
It is even better, when big parts of the
Ken Manheimer writes:
The separation need not mean that the specification is hard to access from
the implementations, either for documentation or for runtime enforcement.
Good!
But, objection will come later.
However, it *does* run contrary to the literate programming notion of
Ken Manheimer wrote:
I'm not expert on eiffel or even interfaces, but my understanding having
interface "specification very near to the implementation" is misleading,
at best. The key thing is that there may be many implementations, all of
which should be written to the same implementation
Lalo Martins wrote:
On Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 08:11:48AM -0800, Michel Pelletier wrote:
Python Interface Proposal
I have been working on a proposal for enhancing the existing interface
documentation in Zope. The Wiki for this project can be found here:
As far as what's written on
Michel Pelletier wrote:
Lalo Martins wrote:
On Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 08:11:48AM -0800, Michel Pelletier wrote:
Python Interface Proposal
I have been working on a proposal for enhancing the existing interface
documentation in Zope. The Wiki for this project can be found
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Michel Pelletier writes:
Also, defining the interface seperately keep the two things apart,
impementation and interface, and doesn't allow you to sneak in a new
method unless you also sneak it into the interface, thus making a
stronger "contract" with the user.
Michel Pelletier writes:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Michel Pelletier writes:
Also, defining the interface seperately keep the two things apart,
impementation and interface, and doesn't allow you to sneak in a new
method unless you also sneak it into the interface, thus making a
Ken Manheimer writes:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
It is a very good thing to have the specification very near
to the implementation -- as a permanent guide to the
implementor. It is even better, when big parts of the
specification becomes part of the executable code
(as is the
Jim Fulton writes:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
I cannot see, why the separation of interface and implementation
should make the contract stronger.
The interface *is* the contract. If someone builds a house
for me, I don't want the house to *be* the contract. I want the
house to adhere
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Michel Pelletier writes:
Also, defining the interface seperately keep the two things apart,
impementation and interface, and doesn't allow you to sneak in a new
method unless you also sneak it into the interface, thus making a
stronger "contract" with the user.
Michel Pelletier writes:
Also, defining the interface seperately keep the two things apart,
impementation and interface, and doesn't allow you to sneak in a new
method unless you also sneak it into the interface, thus making a
stronger "contract" with the user.
I am a bit astonished by
12 matches
Mail list logo
