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: 103376,7dd9b82cd363f55b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: Coding Standards Date: 1996/05/29 Message-ID: <31AC67D0.5D3F@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 157415821 references: <9605291821.AA10842@most> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Date: 1996-05-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) wrote: > Bob Duff asked why expecting code readers to know the coding standard was > different from expecting them to know the LRM. To which I (not very clearly) > stated I want READERS to not need ANY outside source--not even the LRM. > But WRITERS had better know the LRM, the local standards, accepted practice, > and much more. I think the difference in your approach and Bob Duff's approach is that you expect writers to know the coding standards in the _current_ environment. Mr. Duff expects writers to know both the _current_ standards, _and_ the standards under which the code was written. It sounds like, in Mr. Duff's environment, there is no code reuse and no standards evolution, so that the current standards _are_ the original standards. Therefore, it's a moot point for him. However, in the general case, I would not depend on them being the same. -- LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"