From 7231120708432042963 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,ccbfcafab96cf493 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-07 09:46:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail From: Pete Becker Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Proposol to increase robustness of programs Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 17:45:38 GMT Organization: Dinkumware, Ltd Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ Message-ID: <3C10CE1E.E556E183@acm.org> References: <3BFE97B3.91430FB1@wanadoo.fr> <3C058126.36357A00@acm.org> <3C06A0CE.E91638E8@acm.org> <3C0C1E25.1A0247AD@acm.org> <3C0D410B.7198B21D@wanadoo.fr> <3C0D4878.A86E882E@acm.org> <7dc3b1ea.0112060840.69c166cc@posting.google.com> <3C0FD9D7.8F1845C4@acm.org> <3C102097.B3C1FEA8@wizard.net> X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1007747148 mail2news:5716 mail2news mail2news.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mail2News-Path: news.demon.net!mulga.cs.mu.oz.au X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Dec 2001 14:11:12 GMT X-Accept-Language: en Lines: 51 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.std.c++:8549 "James Kuyper Jr." wrote: > > Pete Becker wrote: > > > > Peter Dimov wrote: > > > > > > After changing a base virtual function signature, the typical > > > procedure is to locate all overriders - by hand - and fix them. Rarely > > > does a programmer wait for the tests to fail. They will. No new > > > information would be gained. > > > > > > With consistent use of 'override', the process is automated. > > > > > > > No, it turns into compile-and-see-what-breaks, which is rarely a good > > approach to software engineering. > > I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Compile-and-see-what-breaks is one of > the many important tools that belongs in every programmer's tool chest. No. When programmers resort to this it's because they're tired of thinking. > I think you're missing out on one of the most basic problems 'override' > helps with: spelling errors. Without 'override', a misspelled overrider > is a perfectly legal definition of a completely different member > function. If you are consistently misreading it as having been correctly > spelled (a mistake that's easy for human beings to make), it can be very > difficult to detect the problem through testing, or debugging. Huh? If you haven't overridden a base-class virtual function, then your test code that exercises the derived-class overrider will fail. That's not at all hard: it just works. > Compilers, on the other hand, excel at detecting that kind of error. > Maybe you spell perfectly, but I don't, and neither do most of the other > programmers I've ever worked with. There are lots of places where this could happen. Changing the language to attack one that's easy to test for isn't particularly useful. -- Pete Becker Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com) --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html ]