Always nice to see another Erlang fan! That language is such a pleasure to program in.
[quote="asmodehn, post:14, topic:2405"]
would like first to see more strict enforced message types, before thinking about their combination in an IDL, how this would behave dynamically, and how to enforce some behavior and prevent others
Right now the message field type is too ambiguous (node N can subscribe to a message M with a field int, but actually there will ever be only even numbers there except the developer of N dont know that, unless he goes through the code of all nodes publishing M)
[/quote]
Some would say that this is one thing contracts are meant to check... but I think that depends on where you draw the line between what is a contract and what is the type. But I think you are correct in saying that this sort of information really needs to be available and checkable. It is helpful to have in documentation but far more beneficial to developers (and safer) for it to be automatically checkable.
---
[Visit Topic](
https://discourse.ros.org/t/design-by-contract/2405/15) or reply to this email to respond.
If you do not want to receive messages from ros-users please use the unsubscribe link below. If you use the one above, you will stop all of ros-users from receiving updates.
______________________________________________________________________________
ros-users mailing list
ros-users@lists.ros.org
http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
Unsubscribe: <
http://lists.ros.org/mailman//options/ros-users>
(text/plain)