From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-03 20:13:45
"Dan W." <danw_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:bt6pob$5b8$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
[snip]
> Allright! We agree about something. But what you don't seem to get is
> that's only a benefit to someone who has *access* to that code.
Right, but my point is that the access could be either in .hpp source for or
in
object code form.
> DBC assertions in my .cpp file are not accessible to you, so what good
> are they to you?
I expect to get documentation about the assertions with your library,
especially if I pay big bucks for it.
> How do you know whether the functions in the class I
> just sold you for $49.99 are any good to you, if I only sold you a
> binary and a header file that contains ne requires or ensures?
I trust you. If you mess up once, all your customers will disappear.
> And if, technically, I might have just given you a document extracted
> from my cpp file that contains them, is your compiler able to read this
> document to verify contract correctness?
the compiler should be able to read the ojbect files.
Dan, there might be technical reason for putting the contract somewhere. But
I can't see any difference for the user of a library wheter the contracts
are in the header file
og in object code as long as they are documented.
br
Thorsten