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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,953e1a6689d791f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,953e1a6689d791f6 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Eiffel and Java Date: 1996/11/12 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 195887410 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-11-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <32821C82.2D32524D@sede.unijui.tche.br> "Marcos F. F. de Macedo" writes: > Jon S Anthony wrote: > > > Right. As was pointed out back in that old thread, to get at the > > "separate" spec/impl aspects in Eiffel you would use an "abstract > > class" technique. This doesn't quite work, but it is at least the > > proper analogue. > > The spec/impl is to separate the way that clients see the class > (interface) from actual code/structure. This is done in Eiffel by the > short tool. The short tool generates the interface to an eiffel class > with more spec. than is done in Ada. For what is being discussed here - SEPARATION of spec and impl, the short form for Eiffel is irrelevant. > There is no need to write the interface if it could be stracted from the > source code. I should know that Ada was based on Modula-2 that used this > way of separating. Oberon, the sucessor of Modula-2, uses automatic > interface generating tool. No, Ada was not "based on M2". And if you want to comment on this - first go back and read the thread to understand why what you're saying is just nonsense. After that, maybe you will have something useful to say... /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com