Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [eiffel-nice-library] COMPARABLE and equality.

Expand Messages
  • Emmanuel STAPF [ES]
    Hi, I should have asked the question when the discussion about COMPARABLE started, but could someone summarize what is wrong with the existing specification of
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 16, 2002
      Hi,

      I should have asked the question when the discussion about COMPARABLE
      started, but could someone summarize what is wrong with the existing
      specification of the class in ELKS 95. My believe is that we should try
      to fix bugs if any, to ensure that assertions are well defined (like we
      did in ARRAY and STRING) and then try to find solutions for mismatch
      between different Eiffel vendors.

      Manu

      ----------------------------------------------------------
      Eiffel Software
      805-685-1006
      http://www.eiffel.com
      Customer support: http://support.eiffel.com
      Product information: info@...
      ----------------------------------------------------------
    • Arno Wagner
      ... Right. From my point of view there is only one major issue in COMPARABLE: Is it right to use is_equal for equality. At the moment it looks to me like
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 16, 2002
        On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 04:06:07PM -0700, Emmanuel STAPF [ES] wrote:
        > Hi,
        >
        > I should have asked the question when the discussion about COMPARABLE
        > started, but could someone summarize what is wrong with the existing
        > specification of the class in ELKS 95. My believe is that we should try
        > to fix bugs if any, to ensure that assertions are well defined (like we
        > did in ARRAY and STRING) and then try to find solutions for mismatch
        > between different Eiffel vendors.
        >
        > Manu

        Right. From my point of view there is only one major issue
        in COMPARABLE: Is it right to use 'is_equal' for equality.
        At the moment it looks to me like there is not much choice
        anyway.

        In the process of thinking about this, I stumbled over the
        possible problem with the "equality" features in GENERAL,
        which I mainly posted to be sure I understood it, and if
        I do, to mark as something to be done when next visiting
        GENERAL.

        There are some minor things in the specifiation (invariants,
        preference of min/max of the first argument, postconditions),
        that do however not have any or any major impact on
        functionality. I do not see any code being broken by any
        of the discussed changes, as they all just relax the
        specification or re-formulate it.

        See Jim's and my last post for the equality question.
        See my initial post or Jim's last post for the minor things.

        Regards,
        Arno

        --
        Arno Wagner, Communication Systems Group, ETH Zuerich, wagner@...
        GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
        ----
        For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple,
        and wrong. -- H L Mencken
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.