Re: [gobo-eiffel-develop] Unhandled exception from gec-compiled tests

[Colin P. A. <co...@co...>]

>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Bezault <er...@go...> writes:

    Eric> Colin Adams wrote:
    >> OK - mystery solved.
    >> 
    >> The function concerned is:
    >> 
    >> XM_XPATH_ATOMIC_SORT_COMPARER.raise_non_comparable_exception

    Eric> I don't understand this implementation in class
    Eric> XM_XPATH_ATOMIC_COMPARER:

    Eric> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ are_comparable (an_atomic_value,
    Eric> another_atomic_value: XM_XPATH_ATOMIC_VALUE): BOOLEAN is --
    Eric> Are `an_atomic_value' and `another_atomic_value' comparable?
    Eric> require first_value_not_void: an_atomic_value /= Void
    Eric> second_value_not: another_atomic_value /= Void do if
    Eric> an_atomic_value.is_untyped_atomic then Result :=
    Eric> an_atomic_value.as_untyped_atomic.is_comparable
    Eric> (another_atomic_value) else if
    Eric> an_atomic_value.is_numeric_value then Result :=
    Eric> an_atomic_value.as_numeric_value.is_comparable
    Eric> (another_atomic_value) else if
    Eric> an_atomic_value.is_string_value then Result :=
    Eric> an_atomic_value.as_string_value.is_comparable
    Eric> (another_atomic_value) else Result :=
    Eric> an_atomic_value.is_comparable (another_atomic_value) end end
    Eric> end end ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Eric> How is it different from:

    Eric> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ are_comparable (an_atomic_value,
    Eric> another_atomic_value: XM_XPATH_ATOMIC_VALUE): BOOLEAN is --
    Eric> Are `an_atomic_value' and `another_atomic_value' comparable?
    Eric> require first_value_not_void: an_atomic_value /= Void
    Eric> second_value_not: another_atomic_value /= Void do Result :=
    Eric> an_atomic_value.is_comparable (another_atomic_value) end
    Eric> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I can't tell either. So I've simplifed it.

I think this may have come from splitting out
XM_XPATH_ATOMIC_SORT_COMPARER as a separate class, but also I note
from the early history that I initially hadn't implemented all types,
and was testing for this and raising an exception for the unimplented
cases.
Then I guess I must have gradually added other types in, and failed to
notice that at the end there was no longer a need for the tests.
-- 
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire