Difference between revisions of "Interfacing the Debugger"
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
end | end | ||
</code> | </code> | ||
− | In the case where G | + | In the case where G's actual type parameter is a subtype of STRING the two types are conform again. |
− | The | + | The interesting rule is again '''VYCQ(3)''': |
Is A[ANY] conform to A[STRING]? | Is A[ANY] conform to A[STRING]? | ||
This question is answered with '''no''' too. Therefore the conversion is valid. | This question is answered with '''no''' too. Therefore the conversion is valid. |
Revision as of 19:21, 18 January 2007
Warning: Warning: Article under development
Introduction
This article discusses issues recently discovered for the following two validity rules:
8.15.7 Validity: Conversion Procedure rule, Validity code: VYCP
8.15.8 Validity: Conversion Query rule, Validity code: VYCQ
Examples
For the following examples eweasel tests have been created. Their named
Example 1
eweasel test: convert-to-current-type
class A[G] convert to_a: {A[G]} feature to_a: A[G] end
The conversion to A[G] should indeed not be valid because they are conform.
The only rule that matters in our case is VYCQ(3).
What VYCQ(3) asks is the following
Is A[ANY] conform to A[G]?
As we answer this question clearly with no, the conversion is valid because all the other rules do not object either.
Example 2
eweasel test: convert-to-current-type
class A[G] convert to_a: {A[STRING]} feature to_a: A[STRING] end
In the case where G's actual type parameter is a subtype of STRING the two types are conform again.
The interesting rule is again VYCQ(3):
Is A[ANY] conform to A[STRING]?
This question is answered with no too. Therefore the conversion is valid.