Difference between revisions of "Interfacing the Debugger"

m (Reverted edit of Seilerm, changed back to last version by Konradm)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
{{Warning|'''Warning''': Article under development}}
 
{{Warning|'''Warning''': Article under development}}
  
−
==Introduction==
+
====Introduction====
−
This article discusses issues recently discovered for the following two validity rules:
+
−
 
+
−
8.15.7 Validity: ''Conversion Procedure rule'', Validity code: '''VYCP'''<br>
+
−
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
+
−
<code>[eiffel,N]
+
−
class A[G]
+
−
convert
+
−
  to_a: {A[G]}
+
−
feature
+
−
  to_a: A[G]
+
−
end
+
−
</code>
+
−
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
+
−
<code>[eiffel,N]
+
−
class A[G]
+
−
convert
+
−
  to_a: {A[STRING]}
+
−
feature
+
−
  to_a: A[STRING]
+
−
end
+
−
</code>
+
−
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.
+

Revision as of 03:23, 19 January 2007

Warning.png Warning: Warning: Article under development

Introduction