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, but
Is security really a part of an object's interface? I thought this was more of an implementation thing. - Original Message - From: "Michel Pelletier" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Geeks Mailing List" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 4:05 PM Subject:
On 11/28/00 4:05 PM, "Michel Pelletier" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've added a sub-proposal to the Interface proposal for describing additional meta-data with Interface objects: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/Interfaces/ExtesableMetaData Please comment about this interesting possibility.
Chris McDonough wrote: Is security really a part of an object's interface? Maybe. Are examples? Also maybe. It's documentation, so specific systems that use interfaces may want to be able to extend the kinds of information they can associate with interface elements. I thought this was
Jeffrey P Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: But I'm not sure how one would go about setting your meta-data in a way that is at all natural to Python. I think that exceptions that a method must\should raise *should* be part of a signature\contract. This is one of the really cool things about Java.