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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f039470e8f537101
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-28 10:34:22 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: snarflemike@yahoo.com (Mike Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ariane5 FAQ
Date: 28 Jul 2003 10:34:21 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <20619edc.0307280934.142502eb@posting.google.com>
References: <mailman.26.1058753354.24167.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <e2e5731a.0307241721.a6eae4e@posting.google.com>
 <7u9Ua.13412$634.10307@nwrdny03.gnilink.net> <3F215120.1040706@attbi.com>
 <1059151910.357790@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <e2e5731a.0307251844.7ea4dab4@posting.google.com>
 <bDTUa.6456$AO6.976@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
 <e2e5731a.0307271419.4390a02c@posting.google.com> <ud6fvzbzc.fsf@xsol.com>
 <3F248CEE.5050709@attbi.com> <Wz0Va.9164$AO6.1522@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 154.6.152.68
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1059413662 32528 127.0.0.1 (28 Jul 2003 17:34:22
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Jul 2003 17:34:22 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40903
Date: 2003-07-28T17:34:22+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message news:<Wz0Va.9164$AO6.1522@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
> Robert I. Eachus wrote:
>  > The mapping from requirements to actual code was perfectly done.
> 
> The people who talk about this generally mean that specifications
> which place limits on externally provided data should be reflected
> in the code. In the Ariane 4 case, that would have meant that the
> BH conversion code would have checked its floating value against
> the specified maximum and complained if it was out of range.
> 
> Whether or not you agree that such a thing is necessary, it wasn't
> done that way.

And, besides "complaining," what action should the code have taken?  I
doubt "complaining" alone is an adequate solution!