Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!hsi!stpstn!cox
From: cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox)
Newsgroups: comp.sw.components
Subject: Re: Co-ordinating the polymorphism in C++
Message-ID: <6453@stpstn.UUCP>
Date: 19 Feb 91 12:58:47 GMT
References: <1991Feb14.063522.27655@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <27BC17C4.6304@tct.uucp> <1991Feb16.121825.15353@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <27BFDF44.3EA6@tct.uucp>
Reply-To: cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox)
Organization: Stepstone
Lines: 30

In article <27BFDF44.3EA6@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>According to craig@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Craig Hubley):
>>If what you mean is that users will always need programmers,
>>I'll buy that.

Network constipation caused me to miss the original that prompted this
discussion. Would some (one!) kind soul please email it?

>I would like to see this done with assertions as part of the C++ class
>definition.

Do not confuse white box assertions inside the code (preconditions,
postconditions, and class invarients, as in Eiffel) with black box
assertions expressed externally to the class.

>The more checking that can be done by the compiler, the
>better.

Assertions are checked by the application's running image, not by the 
compiler.

>But I am not willing to jump on the Objective-C bandwagon, if
>only because static typing is a useful way to avoid a great deal of
>run-time messaging and debugging overhead.

There's an Objective-C bandwagon? Where?! Who do I see to join? ;->
-- 

Brad Cox; cox@stepstone.com; CI$ 71230,647; 203 426 1875
The Stepstone Corporation; 75 Glen Road; Sandy Hook CT 06482