Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I notice you mention post/pre conditions (something that UML obviously talks
> > about). I wonder if we want to do a bit of research on Eiffle and it's
> > contractual description. The only thing I wonder is if some of this is
> > actually useful programatically, if t
Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > Is security really a part of an object's interface? I thought this was more
> > of an implementation thing.
>
> Good point. Certainly in Unix I can have two things implementing the
> same interface (e.g. two named pipes) with different security
> settings (i.e. mo
Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>When you've fully debugged an application, you turn both off.
>When you've fully debugged a library module, you create two versions:
>one with both turned off, for use in fully debugged applications, and
>one with pre-conditions on and post-conditions of
[Christopher Petrilli]
> I notice you mention post/pre conditions (something that UML
> obviously talks about). I wonder if we want to do a bit of
> research on Eiffle and it's contractual description. The only
> thing I wonder is if some of this is actually useful
> programatically, if that mak
Chris McDonough wrote:
>
> Is security really a part of an object's interface? I thought this was more
> of an implementation thing.
When refactoring the PTK it became apparent that supplying security
assertions on the interface rather than the implementation can be very
useful. In fact, an in
> I notice you mention post/pre conditions (something that UML obviously talks
> about). I wonder if we want to do a bit of research on Eiffle and it's
> contractual description. The only thing I wonder is if some of this is
> actually useful programatically, if that makes sense? It's great info
