Re: Fw: invasives aspects
"Ashley at Metamaxim" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.aspect.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <006401c7340e$d85a6de0$4001a8c0@Ashley> |
Gregor > The various arguments that AOP does not support modular reasoning invariably rest on the notion that we ought to be > able to do modular reasoning without even simple machine support -- to be able to print code out and reason about it > effectively from the printouts. Since no practicing developer tries to reason about code today without tool support, even > for OO programming, it seems an unrealistic constraint to place on AOP. The paper I cited does not suggest that reasoning must/should be possible without tool support. I can see that using a tool might make reasoning easier, but it is difficult to imagine that it can affect whether reasoning is theoretically possible. > IMHO all of these arguments against 'invasive' advice miss the key point: without AOP modularity constructs, true > crosscutting concerns cannot be reasoned about in a modular way. With AOP constructs they can. I did not understand this comment. Can you elucidate, please? Rgds Ashley _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe and change options, go to: http://aosd.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss_aosd.net Check out the AOSD.net Wiki: http://aosd.net/wiki