From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_WORDY, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,66752102482bbdca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Ken Garlington" Subject: Re: Required Metrics Date: 2000/05/05 Message-ID: <%MoQ4.7915$wb7.556168@news.flash.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 619380788 References: <5DDO4.2237$wb7.194854@news.flash.net> <8ek4ea$5ta$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8es65n$5hn$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Priority: 3 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 X-Complaints-To: abuse@flash.net X-Trace: news.flash.net 957487291 216.215.79.68 (Thu, 04 May 2000 19:41:31 CDT) Organization: FlashNet Communications, http://www.flash.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 19:41:31 CDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-05-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Robert Dewar" wrote in message news:8es65n$5hn$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > In article , > "Ken Garlington" 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" ;)