Re: from Danny's chat - 11/19
From: John Jacobson (jjacobson8NOSPAM_at_wi.rr.com)
Date: 12/21/04
- Next message: Serge Dosyukov \(Dragon Soft\): "Re: Delphi 2005 and missing component equivalents for VS"
- Previous message: Nick Hodges [TeamB]: "Re: Delphi for Windows CE.NET"
- In reply to: Kevin Berry: "Re: from Danny's chat - 11/19"
- Next in thread: TeamB: "Re: from Danny's chat - 11/19"
- Reply: TeamB: "Re: from Danny's chat - 11/19"
- Reply: Jarle Stabell: "Re: from Danny's chat - 11/19"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:58:52 -0500
"Kevin Berry" <kevin@berry_REM0VETH1S_ware.com> wrote in message
news:41c83da1$1@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Captain Jake wrote:
>> Design by contract results in a nice clean syntax when it is built into
>> the language, but it isn't anything you can not implement using asserts.
>
> One of the benefits of DBC is that unit testing can be automated better.
> If you have a set of pre and post-conditions you can have some kind of
> automated tool that uses this information to generate test cases. At
> least that's the way I understand it. I've never used DBC in practice so
> it's all just theory to me, but the theory sounds good...
This all sounds like something you would never want implemented in a release
version. I can imagine the user delight upon encountering a cryptic error
message like "Precondition x > 300 violated".
- Next message: Serge Dosyukov \(Dragon Soft\): "Re: Delphi 2005 and missing component equivalents for VS"
- Previous message: Nick Hodges [TeamB]: "Re: Delphi for Windows CE.NET"
- In reply to: Kevin Berry: "Re: from Danny's chat - 11/19"
- Next in thread: TeamB: "Re: from Danny's chat - 11/19"
- Reply: TeamB: "Re: from Danny's chat - 11/19"
- Reply: Jarle Stabell: "Re: from Danny's chat - 11/19"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
