Re: ada writing guide

["Samuel T. Harris" <samuel_t_harris@Raytheon.com>]

Robert A Duff wrote:
> 
> "Samuel T. Harris" <samuel_t_harris@Raytheon.com> writes:
> 
> > Integration of CM tools with other tools is a black art.
> > You have an integration problem which no CM tool can
> > fully prevent.
> 
> No, I don't agree.  The blame clearly lies on the Emacs side, not on the
> CM side.  And (apparently) the bug has been fixed, which indicates that
> the author of the Emacs extension in question agrees.  Let's not be
> wishy-washy, and blame the bug on some amorphous interface between the
> two.

Let me clarify. By saying you have an integration problem, I
did not mean to direct blame, but only to classify the kind of
problem you were having. The tool IS clearly to be blamed
for not taking care in the writing and rewriting of such
a clearly important file. I believe we are in total
agreement!

> 
> >... Part of our tool selection criteria is how
> > candidate tools can be fit into our CM system. Some tools
> > are great at what they do, but their file structures or
> > change flows simply make them incompatible with our systems.
> 
> True, but this case is a plain-and-simple bug in Emacs (or actually an
> extension thereof).

My point here is that if any tool under consideration behaved
like Emacs does/did, then that tool would find itself on
the fast-track out the door! In such sitations, I don't care
if its a bug or intended behavior. If I can't control the
parts that need controlling, then I have no use for the tool!

Now, if the tool changes behavior, then I'm glad to reconsider it.
This is the happy result which you now enjoy and your enjoyment
makes me happy. The world is a better place now :)

-- 
Samuel T. Harris, Principal Engineer
Raytheon, Aerospace Engineering Services
"If you can make it, We can fake it!"