Re: Required Metrics

["Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org>]

"Robert Dewar" <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8es65n$5hn$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <BQnP4.3698$wb7.344147@news.flash.net>,
>   "Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote:
>
> > I'm not surprised, but I don't think it really answers my
> question. The
> > issue isn't, in my mind, "How easy is it for vendors to ignore
> certain
> > requirements?".  It's "Is there really a requirement?" (See my
> response to
> > Tucker's post for more...)
>
>
> For a validated compiler -- difficult! In particular, how can
> the DOC be signed if you have ignored a requirement.

I suspect with a pen in the hand, and a song in the heart!

I think you read the statement backwards, by the way. To repeat: The issue
isn't, in my mind, "How easy is it for vendors to ignore certain
requirements?".  It's "Is there really a requirement?"

> Once again, the documentation requirements, the primary subject
> of this thread, are in a rather special category, since these
> are untestable, undefined requirements. Normally one would not
> expect to find untestable, undefined stuff in a language
> standard, and for the most part, one does not in the Ada RM,
> but I am afraid there are exceptions :-)

I suspect, after you read the discussion of pragma Reviewable, we're going
to be expanding this to "documentation and some implementation requirements"
;)