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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,791530e499e6a7f9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: ada writing guide
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <2000Apr21.073417.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 613926941
References: <8d1rso$bir$2@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au> <8d1vhj$hdr$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <8d2hig$7e6$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38F5DF8C.1A01E5A4@utech.net>
 <8d4t07$o15$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38F603FE.B0C3ED83@utech.net>
 <8d5dsc$c27$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8d6hjn$j9p$1@clnews.edf.fr>
 <8d76vj$9jt$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8d7uak$1d1$1@wanadoo.fr>
 <8dfd6q$uch$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <87em84vavt.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>
 <8dfpj7$crs$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38FF1D6B.4120AF7B@Raytheon.com>
 <38FF4D28.8F946BDA@telepath.com> <8do6q2$oli$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <38FFd43e.70f1bb7d@telepath.com>
X-Trace: news.decus.org 956316862 22856 KILGALLEN [216.44.122.34]
Organization: Digital Equipment Computer User's Society
Followup-To: d43e.70f1bb7d@telepath.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-04-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam
Organization: LJK Software
Lines: 21

In article <38FFD43E.70F1BB7D@telepath.com>, Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> writes:
> Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
>> Ted, I think you missed my point :-) I will say again, that
>> this kind of mistake is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for my working
>> environment. Why, because every time I check something in, I
>> carefully verify that the changes I am making are exactly as
>> I expect them to be. I find any system which does not involve
> 
> Ahh, you're right, I didn't catch that part before. So you are saying
> you always do a diff and visually inspect the report prior to doing a
> checkin? That would indeed catch the problem. It wouldn't *prevent* the
> problem, but it would catch it before you hose the baseline. The removal
> of an item would stick out like a sore thumb on a diff. Personally, I'd
> prefer to see the problem prevented than caught though. Remember that my
> complaint was that it can happen in the first place, not that its
> impossible to catch.

But there is nothing to prevent me, in using an editor, from making
a change that exactly removes a previous change.  Therefore, human
inspection of what gets checked in will always be required.