Informally specifying Squeak
ssadams at us.ibm.com
Tue Apr 16 01:00:41 UTC 2002
you might want to take a look at
This was an effort to provide a kind of specification of intent for
Smalltalk methods and classes.
Sam S. Adams, IBM Distinguished Engineer, IBM Research
tie line 444-0736, outside 919-254-0736, email: ssadams at us.ibm.com
<<Hebrews 11:6, Proverbs 3:5-6, Romans 1:16-17, I Corinthians 1:10>>
David Faden <dfaden at mac.com>
Sent by: To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfou cc:
ndation.org Subject: Informally specifying Squeak
04/14/2002 01:19 AM
Please respond to squeak-dev
I'm considering doing an independent study project and am wondering
how I might make the results of the project useful to the Squeak
community. The project would involve revising an informal specification
of Smalltalk's key built-in types (based on Little Smalltalk) to fit
with Squeak. The present version of the document, "Overview and
Specification of the Built-In Types in Little Smalltalk" by Gary Leavens
and Yoonsik Cheon, is available at
ftp://ftp.cs.iastate.edu/pub/techreports/TR91-22/TR.ps.Z and is cached
For example, Boolean's and: method is specified as follows:
and: self: Boolean, aBlock: Block -> b: Boolean
Requires: aBlock takes no arguments and returns a Boolean.
Modifies at most: the objects modified by the execution of aBlock.
Ensures: b is false if self is false; otherwise b is the result of
What could I do to make this work most useful to the Squeak community?
How would you suggest presenting the specification? (My first
inclination is to insert a method's specification into its comment so as
to make the specification available from a browser.)
More information about the Squeak-dev