Difference between revisions of "Interfacing the Debugger"

m
m
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 is actual type parameter is a subtype of STRING to two types are conform again.
 +
 
 +
The intresting rule is again '''VYCQ(3)''':
 +
 
 +
Is A[ANY] conform to A[G]?
 +
 
 +
This question is answered with '''no''' too. Therefore the conversion is valid.

Revision as of 19:12, 18 January 2007

Warning.png 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 is actual type parameter is a subtype of STRING to two types are conform again.

The intresting rule is again VYCQ(3):

Is A[ANY] conform to A[G]?

This question is answered with no too. Therefore the conversion is valid.