This Article 
 Bibliographic References 
 Add to: 
Comments on 'On criteria for module interfaces'
December 1990 (vol. 16 no. 12)
pp. 1440

The commenter acknowledges that the practical criteria provided in the above-titled paper, offer substantive guidelines for designing module interfaces. He points out that the results obtained can be further improved and certain remaining conflicts resolved through consideration of established principles of structured design and software engineering. He illustrates his point with an example involving the specification of a stack interface that requires two or three separate references to replace one. He presents two designs and argues that the first is better. The author refutes the commenter's arguments and argues that the second design is better.

[1] L. L. Constantine, "Objects, functions, and program extensibility,"Comput. Lang., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 34-55, Jan. 1990.
[2] E. Yourdon and L. L. Constantine,Structured Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979.
[3] M. Page-Jones,The Practical Guide to Structured System Design, Yourdon Press, New York, 1980.
[4] D. W. Embley and S. N. Woodfield, "Cohesion and coupling for abstract data types," inProc. Sixth Annu. Conf. Computers and Communication, Scottsdale, AZ, Feb. 1987.

Index Terms:
module interfaces; practical criteria; structured design; software engineering; stack interface; data structures; structured programming; user interfaces
L.L. Constantine, "Comments on 'On criteria for module interfaces'," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 1440, Dec. 1990, doi:10.1109/32.62453
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.