| R. Mitchell, I. Maung, J. Howse, and T. Heathcote. Checking software contracts. In R. Ege, M. Singh, and B. Meyer, editors, TOOLS 17 --- Technology of Object-Oriented Programming, pages 97--106. Prentice Hall, August 1995. |
....it is not decidable which transition is executed at run time. Therefore, neither correctness of application nor conformance in the sense we defined it may be tested statically. For the programming language Eiffel [21] Mitchell et al. describe how to enhance the checks of software contracts, see [22]. The evaluation is done at run time. Van den Bos and Laffra use regular expressions to define the sequence methods acceptable by an object [33] Additionally, their language PROCOL allows guards to lock some methods depending on the state of the object. However, subtyping is not addressed, ....
R. Mitchell, I. Maung, J. Howse, and T. Heathcote. Checking software contracts. In R. Ege, M. Singh, and B. Meyer, editors, TOOLS 17 --- Technology of Object-Oriented Programming, pages 97--106. Prentice Hall, August 1995.
....of an easy composition, adaptions should take place automatically. To support this, we introduce component types (see section 4) describing the services a component offers and the services it wants to use from other components. This is opposed to other works in the field of type systems [Mey92] MMHH95] which only view types as specifying allowed operations on entities of the type. Automatic adaptions and extensions are in our approach reflected by dynamic changes 1 accepted at OOPSLA 99 Workshop on Object Oriented Reflection and Software Engineering Denver, COLORADO Monday, November 1st, ....
R. Mitchell, I. Maung, J. Howse, and T. Heathcote. Checking Software Contracts. In R. Ege, M. Singh, and B. Meyer, editors, TOOLS 17 --- Technology of Object-Oriented Programming, pages 97--106. Prentice Hall, August 1995.
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC