mirrors/eiffel-org
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/EiffelSoftware/eiffel-org.git synced 2025-12-07 15:22:31 +01:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Initiative to replace "Eiffel language" and similar with "Eiffel programming language"

Browse Source 
Author:halw
Date:2012-08-20T14:17:44.000000Z


git-svn-id: https://svn.eiffel.com/eiffel-org/trunk@1142 abb3cda0-5349-4a8f-a601-0c33ac3a8c38
This commit is contained in:
halw
2012-08-20 14:17:44 +00:00
parent 13a83ba27e
commit 243122040b
1 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
documentation/current/platform-specifics/microsoft-windows/net/eiffel-net-language/conventions/eiffel-class-and-feature-names.wiki
View File

@@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ Member of type System.Text.StringBuilder
</code> </code>
The Eiffel language does not allow overloading routine names. That means that you cannot code multiple routines with the same name in a single class. That in itself is not a problem. But it also means that to work in the .NET environment, where overloading is allowed some compromise has to be made. So, what happens is this: if you are programming in Eiffel for .NET and you are using types from a .NET assembly, those types will be presented to you as if they are Eiffel classes. We have already seen that the type and feature names will be shown in the Eiffel naming convention. With overloaded feature names, the presentation will use name augmentation to disambiguate the overloaded versions. What you see is a distinct feature name for each overloaded version. The basic feature name is augmented by adding the types of its respective arguments, separated by underscore. The Eiffel programming language does not allow overloading routine names. That means that you cannot code multiple routines with the same name in a single class. That in itself is not a problem. But it also means that to work in the .NET environment, where overloading is allowed some compromise has to be made. So, what happens is this: if you are programming in Eiffel for .NET and you are using types from a .NET assembly, those types will be presented to you as if they are Eiffel classes. We have already seen that the type and feature names will be shown in the Eiffel naming convention. With overloaded feature names, the presentation will use name augmentation to disambiguate the overloaded versions. What you see is a distinct feature name for each overloaded version. The basic feature name is augmented by adding the types of its respective arguments, separated by underscore.
Let's look again at the two <code>Append</code> functions from <code>System.Text.StringBuilder</code>. Let's look again at the two <code>Append</code> functions from <code>System.Text.StringBuilder</code>.
<code> <code>
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ Properties in .NET provide:
* the opportunity to '''strengthen encapsulation,''' because values cannot be receive assignment without executing the property's "set" code * the opportunity to '''strengthen encapsulation,''' because values cannot be receive assignment without executing the property's "set" code
* '''uniform access ''' queries because properties are queries, but unlike previous C-style OO languages in which properties did not exist, if a property is used in programming a client class, the programmer does not need to know whether the data provided by the property was done so from memory or through computation. This leaves the producer of the class with the property the latitude to change the implementation without breaking existing clients. * '''uniform access ''' queries because properties are queries, but unlike previous C-style OO languages in which properties did not exist, if a property is used in programming a client class, the programmer does not need to know whether the data provided by the property was done so from memory or through computation. This leaves the producer of the class with the property the latitude to change the implementation without breaking existing clients.
In Eiffel, the same goals are fulfilled, but a little differently. Simple attributes are well-encapsulated, because the Eiffel language does not allow direct assignment to them from outside the control of their class. So any assignment of the form <code>x</code>. <code>f</code> := <code>y</code> is not valid in Eiffel. To allow client to set values of the attribute <code>f</code>, the producer of the class of which <code>x</code> is an instance would have built a command (a "<code>set_</code>" procedure) to do so. Then the code in a client to set <code>f</code> would look like this: <code>x</code>.<code>set_f</code> (<code>y</code>). In Eiffel, the same goals are fulfilled, but a little differently. Simple attributes are well-encapsulated, because the Eiffel programming language does not allow direct assignment to them from outside the control of their class. So any assignment of the form <code>x</code>. <code>f</code> := <code>y</code> is not valid in Eiffel. To allow client to set values of the attribute <code>f</code>, the producer of the class of which <code>x</code> is an instance would have built a command (a "<code>set_</code>" procedure) to do so. Then the code in a client to set <code>f</code> would look like this: <code>x</code>.<code>set_f</code> (<code>y</code>).
Uniform access is achieved in Eiffel through the way in which clientssee features which are queries. The code " <code>print</code> ( <code>x</code>.<code>count</code>)" applies the query <code>count</code> to the object attached to <code>x</code> and prints the result. You cannot tell by looking at this code whether <code>count</code> is an attribute or a function, that is, whether the <code>count</code> is returned from memory or through computation. In fact, it could be either, but that is a matter for its producer to deal with. As reuse consumers the implementation of <code>count</code>is not important to us ...but the fact that the producer can change the implementation without causing our code to need modification is very important to us. Uniform access is achieved in Eiffel through the way in which clientssee features which are queries. The code " <code>print</code> ( <code>x</code>.<code>count</code>)" applies the query <code>count</code> to the object attached to <code>x</code> and prints the result. You cannot tell by looking at this code whether <code>count</code> is an attribute or a function, that is, whether the <code>count</code> is returned from memory or through computation. In fact, it could be either, but that is a matter for its producer to deal with. As reuse consumers the implementation of <code>count</code>is not important to us ...but the fact that the producer can change the implementation without causing our code to need modification is very important to us.