Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!ksand From: ksand@Apple.COM (Kent Sandvik) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: A GNU Makefile (was: ... header files **and** inline management) Message-ID: <49635@apple.Apple.COM> Date: 26 Feb 91 05:42:42 GMT References: <3943@lupine.NCD.COM> <1991Feb18.073640.1335@lth.se> <4107@lupine.NCD.COM> Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA Lines: 75 In article <4107@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes: >In article <1991Feb18.073640.1335@lth.se> dag@control.lth.se (Dag Bruck) writes: >>In article <3943@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes: >>>In article <1991Feb11.081550.18057@eua.ericsson.se> euamts@eua.ericsson.se (Mats Henricson) writes: >>>>The most important thing with a C++ class is its interface to the outside >>>>world, i.e. the header file. That is why I design the header file first, >>>>and then the .cc-file. >>> >>>And you never go back and make any changes to the "interface" part once >>>you have written it for the first time!?!?!?! >>>I'd like to meet you someday. I've never had the opportunity to meet a >>>"perfect" programmer before! >>>In other words you want the "implementation" part to be automatically >>>derived from the "interface" or "specification" part, eh? >> >>These comments are so stupid that they have to be a deliberate joke. >>Just in case they aren't, allow me to point out that: >> >>1. If the the design is well-understood and verified, for example by >>implementing a prototype, we can generate header files and stubs from >>the prototype. > >Dag, please take one or two more classes in English. You twisted around >my statement until you got is completely backwards. You say that we >can generate the header files (I assume you mean what I call the >"interface" to a C++ "module") in an automated way. Perhaps that is >true. I don't know. But that's got no relationship at all to the point >I was making. What I said (quoted above) was that it seemed that Mats >was asking for the whole *implementation* part to be generated from just >the *interface* part. > >That's is absolutely impossible with current technology. > >If you are still having trouble understanding what is meant by the terms >"interface part" and "implementation part" then please send me mail >and I will try to explain these terms to you so that you can understand >them and so that you will understand the meaning of my English sentences. > >Please don't feel bad that you are having trouble understanding my use of >clear English. Other recent postings to this newsgroup indicate that >there are also many native speakers who don't seem to be able to >understand plain English either. Well, I have to write myselfd a couple of clear English sentences in a non- native language about this issue :-). This whole thread seems to be a big misunderstanding from the beginning to the current end. It starts with one person stating that he first designs header files, and after that starts working with implementation files. After this statement person no 2 says that this is stupid, because header files are subject to change in design. Person 3 says that there are prototype tools that could generate header and method code automatically. By which person 2 states that "I did not say that at all", and states that he believed that the first person wrote that method code is automatically generated from the information in the header file. Well, R.I.P. Kent Sandvik, English Language Meta-Morphosis Cannibalist PS: Usenet is fun, comp.lang.c++ discussions end up as English language discussions :-) -- Kent Sandvik, Apple Computer Inc, Developer Technical Support NET:ksand@apple.com, AppleLink: KSAND DISCLAIMER: Private mumbo-jumbo Zippy++ says: "C++ was given to mankind, so that we might learn patience"