mirrors/eiffel-org
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/EiffelSoftware/eiffel-org.git synced 2025-12-08 15:52:26 +01:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Additions to "Check" from feedback.

Browse Source 
Author:halw
Date:2010-05-27T14:13:30.000000Z


git-svn-id: https://svn.eiffel.com/eiffel-org/trunk@620 abb3cda0-5349-4a8f-a601-0c33ac3a8c38
This commit is contained in:
halw
2010-05-27 14:13:30 +00:00
parent 7e70a8ff08
commit 1526a4ed99
1 changed files with 3 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
documentation/current/method/eiffel-tutorial-et/et-instructions.wiki
View File

@@ -337,7 +337,7 @@ There is, however, one form of <code>check</code> that continues to be monitored
</code>
Here <code>Assertion</code> is a list of assertions as above, and <code>Compound</code> is a list of zero or more executable instructions.
This variant is used often when ensuring [[Void-safe programming in Eiffel|void-safety]]. It is used make certain that certain detachable entities are actually attached to objects when expected, and to create a new void-safe scope for accessing the objects. For example,
This variant is used often when ensuring [[Void-safe programming in Eiffel|void-safety]]. It is used make certain that certain detachable entities are actually attached to objects when expected, and to create a new void-safe scope for accessing the objects. For example:
<code>
check attached my_detachable as l_temp then
l_temp.do_something
@@ -345,6 +345,8 @@ This variant is used often when ensuring [[Void-safe programming in Eiffel|void-
</code>
In cases in which <code>my_detachable</code> is attached to an object (as is expected), the local entity l_temp will allow controlled access to the object during the scope of the <code>check</code> instruction. If a case occurs in which <code>my_detachable</code> is not attached to an object, then an exception is triggered. As noted above, for this variant of <code>check</code>, assertion monitoring is always in effect, even if it has been turned off for other cases.
So, the form <code>check ... then ... end</code> is somewhat similar to <code>if ... then ... end</code>. The difference is that the <code>if ... then ... end</code> allows the possibility that valid cases might occur in which the boolean expression is not true, and processing continues. The <code>check ... then ... end</code> does not allow such a possibility. The boolean expression is expected always to hold. In fact, if the expression is not true, then like other assertion violations, this is indicative of a bug, and will cause an exception to be raised.
{{recommended|An extra indentation of the <code>check</code> part to separate it from the algorithm proper; and inclusion of a comment listing the rationale behind the developer's decision not to check explicitly for the precondition. }}