I think that asserting that BDD = TDD + DBC is not correct. The first directive of Test Driven Design is the notion that a specification can be created via the use of tests. In other words, express your requirements through unit tests. Write the test first, fail, fix the implementation until the

Rust is safe compared to C and C++, but not compared to Eiffel. Rust makes C pointers safe. Eiffel has no such things where programmers can manipulate l-values with disastrous consequences. Ian Sent from my iPad

Nachricht <3b11bfd3-bd90-4d2f-80eb-cd681e1bf758n@googlegroups.com>: > [Wild Idea for Today] > > Rust can eat > your car away but it can also be used to program vehicle software or > anything IoT. > > Rust's design has different ways

[Wild Idea for Today] Rust can eat your car away but it can also be used to program vehicle software or anything IoT. Rust's design has different ways to achieve Object Orientation in a safe manner. Where have I heard that before??? Boeing Commerical Aircraft company manage to kill ~345 people

The "View How to..." [...install M$ 7.1 SDK + .NET 4.xxx] button in the 19.05 GPL 64-bit installer isn't working. I had installed those SDKs years ago My next task is to install Eiffel 19.05 GPL and see if it finds the existing SDKs. The environment variables may need to be adjusted so

I have installed the latest EiffelStudio but have an unexpected result. The more premium trial version license appears to be active. My intent was to install the Open Source community version & use that ahead. I don't want to use any of the Studio's premium features inadvertently & then have

Powerbuilder does that incremental compilation. Each object function is edited separately, and is syntax-checked before it's allowed to be saved. If your coding is incomplete, you need to comment stuff out temporarily in order to move on to something else. It is a great feature. The compilation

On 17 Jun 2021, at 7:19 pm, Ulrich Windl wrote: > > Hi! > > The other thing is source code formatting: > I'm aware that most people don't care, but rely on IDEs to format the code, > but my generation that grew up with a line editor (actually we were the

On 17 Jun 2021, at 6:31 pm, 'Alexander Kogtenkov' via Eiffel Users < eiffel...@googlegroups.com> wrote: There are at least 2 issues with the idea to store programs directly in AST: Excellent points. 1. What if the program is incomplete (read: is not in a valid syntax)? This happens for

On 17 Jun 2021, at 5:39 pm, Philippe K wrote:  About : ∀ x : my_list *loop* x.my_operation *end* I share your opinion Ulrich, this following notation seems better : ∀ x : my_list *do* x.my_operation *end* The symbol ∀ itself already carries the notion of iteration, which is

Hi! The other thing is source code formatting: I'm aware that most people don't care, but rely on IDEs to format the code, but my generation that grew up with a line editor (actually we were the first that had not to use punch cards) has learned how to format code. I wouldn't like my

There are at least 2 issues with the idea to store programs directly in AST: 1. What if the program is incomplete (read: is not in a valid syntax)? This happens for various reasons, and users do want to save the partial work even when it does not correspond to any valid program. 2.

About : ∀ x : my_list *loop* x.my_operation *end* I share your opinion Ulrich, this following notation seems better : ∀ x : my_list *do* x.my_operation *end* The symbol ∀ itself already carries the notion of iteration, which is why the keyword loop is redundant in my opinion. The usual do /

Right, the ≝ could be a valid choice. Le jeudi 17 juin 2021 à 09:06:35 UTC+2, Ulrich W. a écrit : > >>> Philippe K schrieb am 16.06.2021 um 17:29 in > Nachricht > <77ba5b79-3c8e-4ea0...@googlegroups.com>: > > > > > To continue with the idea of a syntax with more clarity,

<77ba5b79-3c8e-4ea0-80dd-61608a916290n@googlegroups.com>: > > To continue with the idea of a syntax with more clarity, it would also be > useful to use the correct mathematical symbol for defining constants : ≜ Why not ≝? > > The distinction is then clear between a definition and the

So the future languages will look like the one in the attachment? ;-) (Sorry, I couldn't resist) >>> Ian Joyner 16.06.2021, 16:14 >>> I think is was Ulrich that raise the pronunciation problem. I’m all for deemphasising text in languages and replacing with graphic elements, like maybe an

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 07:36, Ulrich Windl wrote: > IMHO the "loop character" is ➰, not ⟳ or ⟲. ;-) > > But a programming "loop" is not such a loop - it is going round-and-round. So BM's choice of character is more descriptive.

<16eb2bf3-58de-446e-9f8d-d3c3d634f8abn@googlegroups.com>: > My comment about this writing: > ⟳ x: my_list | x.my_operation ⟲ > > I feel a lot of discomfort using it as such although the idea of a concise > but still understandable and Math oriented notation is excellent. > > I'm really

om>: > All good points, but in reality, 'assignment' isn't "moving the thing on the > right to the thing on the left", it is a change, or addition or reference. > Sometimes, at least. Perhaps that's the notion that needs reinforcing. > That said, when dealing with scalars, an assignment

IMHO the "loop character" is ➰, not ⟳ or ⟲. ;-) >>> Thomas Beale schrieb am 16.06.2021 um 14:08 in Nachricht : > Hi Bertrand, > yes, this would have been my default expectation (even though I take your > point about

On 17 Jun 2021, at 1:12 am, 'Alexander Kogtenkov' via Eiffel Users < eiffel...@googlegroups.com> wrote: And the compiler should be able to recognize all possible variants of the syntax to maintain code reusability across different projects. That is not what I’m talking about, which I think would

For a non-mathematical option, we could use the 'is' keyword, as in: Ks_some_name: STRING is "Bob" K_some_value: INTEGER is 10 The "K" notation is a personal convention only. Using the the 'is' keyword should reinforce that it's a case of identity. The equal sign looks too much like an

To continue with the idea of a syntax with more clarity, it would also be useful to use the correct mathematical symbol for defining constants : ≜ The distinction is then clear between a definition and the equality operator. For example: nominal_speed ≜ 20 if speed = nominal_speed then … The