Joe-E 2.0 Release
David Wagner <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.e.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
David Wagner wrote: > 6. We could add a convenience feature to the Eclipse plugin that > automatically emits a @verified annotation for packages in which the > Joe-E verifier has successfully verified every class in that package. > This could be optionally enabled or disabled according to user > preferences. Programmers who don't want to use this feature can > type in the one-line @verified annotation into the package-info.java > file by hand. Joe-E programmers who don't care can have the Eclipse > plugin auto-generate it for them, so they don't need to know anything. Bill Frantz wrote: > What happens if a package is successfully verified, and has the > annotation, and then is changed so it will not verify? Is the > annotation removed? In that case, the Joe-E verifier will reject and the Eclipse plugin will display at least one verification error. I believe the burden is on the programmer to ensure that all Joe-E code passes the Joe-E verifier. I don't know if the Eclipse plugin does anything else to protect users from this case, like forcing the build to fail and deleting .class files. Adrian could answer that. I wonder if the name @verified is misleading. Would a name like @needsverification or @allegedlyjoee better convey the intent? If I understand Tyler's proposal correctly, this annotation is a message from the programmer to the system indicating that the programmer intended this code to be within the Joe-E subset, rather than a message from the Joe-E verifier that the code has in fact been verified to be within the Joe-E subset. We can only rely upon @verified packages to have passed the Joe-E verifier if (a) the user is careful to run the Joe-E verifier on all packages that contain Joe-E code; (b) the user is careful not to run the code if the Joe-E verifier flags any errors. Does this sound overly dangerous?