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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why .ads as well as .adb?
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:07:17 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lyh88x4xmi.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <28facad3-c55f-4ef2-8ef8-004925b7d1f1@googlegroups.com>
	<qd2krk$pin$1@gioia.aioe.org>
	<f37f6f75-62d4-4152-917e-d666d67f6cb7@googlegroups.com>
	<qd6rb8$hl7$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
	<a902e41a-729d-4c00-8e3f-0cda1822a349@googlegroups.com>
	<qd81gq$aej$1@dont-email.me> <87woi0xtwm.fsf@nightsong.com>
	<glpiqeFt9jqU1@mid.individual.net>
	<f611bdb8-5a40-48bd-afe5-17de72bbe193@googlegroups.com>
	<glq1rpF1v52U1@mid.individual.net>
	<4a0438de-1f1d-4469-aae4-908854d378ea@googlegroups.com>
	<qdbvth$3db$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
	<47d02bdc-6b50-43aa-bc5d-bb5b6225f5bd@googlegroups.com>
	<455333f0-ede4-4833-900a-240a499395ac@googlegroups.com>
	<875zphvufc.fsf@nightsong.com> <ln1s03sqkt.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
	<87y32bvbeo.fsf@nightsong.com> <lno936r3jw.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
	<561c766c-4f9c-432c-be9b-822dd9c3c8ba@googlegroups.com>
	<lypnnm4ez7.fsf@pushface.org>
	<ee3c5a44-e2cd-4997-b62b-90489820ec97@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="b2ba2eb32f0aff17fafdfc4533782e76";
	logging-data="30788"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+6g0cvlMInG8o9w5Wx8zO8K7cdNuu4Jp4="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CzW8hQ3oe2AkxDNVZ023zqxgHqA=
	sha1:VuwD2CBF3dzX2luP7wYSzriuLVU=
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56596
Date: 2019-06-10T10:07:17+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

John Perry <john.perry@usm.edu> writes:

> On Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 4:37:49 PM UTC-5, Simon Wright wrote:

 >> ... well, I don't know Eiffel, so I can't really tell, but the first
>> thing I see is
>> 
>>    description: 
>>       "Binary search trees; left child item is less than current item,
>>       right child item is greater"
>> 
>> and I ask myself, does this mean that there can't be equal elements
>> in the tree?
>
> I think this is beside the point? That's not a function of spec files
> versus implementation files, is it?

It'd be something that a specification should do, and a spec file would
be better off for stating it. Otherwise, what do I do? write a test
program to see whether it's OK or not? spend a lot of resource assuming
one way, only to find after delivery that it's actually the other?