🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <255@eiffel.UUCP| bertrand@eiffel.UUCP (Bertrand Meyer) writes:
| From <2829@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> by bruce@menkar.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bruce Mount):
| | In the current JOOP (Jan/Feb 1990, page 10), Hans-Stephan Jansohn questions 
| | the type-checking ability of Eiffel in a detailed letter to the editor.
| 	- No other policy than the Eiffel one is possible to write
| 	  realistic object-oriented software (as opposed to toy examples).

Given the magnitude of this compromise and of the criticism it has
engendered, it would be good to see a supporting argument.  Example
programs that demonstrate the flaw are not artificial, but inevitable.
Indeed, it seems that only toy examples can be guaranteed to avoid it.
Your article of July 10th is not compelling and the policy statement 
above sounds too much like famous last words.

Such a hole in what purports to be a type safe language is shocking, to 
say the least.

Alonzo Gariepy			-- This message is not a representation of the
alonzo@microsoft		-- policies or opinions of Microsoft Corp.