On 18 Dec 2009, at 14:46, Tom Stuart wrote:
> Can you elaborate? From a position of no knowledge, the most obvious question
> to me is: why would I care about the state of O? Either the change in O's
> state is observable through its behaviour (in which case I specify that
> behaviour) or it's
On Dec 18, 2009, at 2:46 pm, Tom Stuart wrote:
> Can you elaborate? From a position of no knowledge, the most obvious question
> to me is: why would I care about the state of O? Either the change in O's
> state is observable through its behaviour (in which case I specify that
> behaviour) or i
On 18 Dec 2009, at 14:35, Ashley Moran wrote:
> The principle appears to be
> object O has sent message M => O is in state S
> followed by
> O is in state S => (expectation E met) passes spec
> O is not in state S => (expectation E met) violates spec
Can you elaborate? From a position of n
