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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no 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: 2003-07-24 09:31:50 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail
From: Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ariane5 FAQ
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:35:28 -0700
Organization: AdaWorks Software Engineering
Message-ID: <3F200AD0.94F79098@adaworks.com>
References: <mailman.26.1058753354.24167.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <1058799152.775376@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <bfh2gb$eeiv4$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <1058810510.375902@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <bfhaed$e786b$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <1058813341.841940@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <bfhe55$eqglr$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <1058816605.566685@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <bfhjjr$eftm1$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <AY0Ta.14787$0F4.7550@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
 <bfiujt$f9lj1$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <wqkTa.18742$0F4.18264@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
 <pan.2003.07.23.00.31.01.14991@mail.utexas.edu>
 <1058968422.225561@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
Reply-To: richard@adaworks.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.bb.80.1e
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Server-Date: 24 Jul 2003 16:31:50 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40769
Date: 2003-07-24T16:31:50+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> > Which brings us directly back to Alexandre's "there were no reasons to
> > expect that it should work for this new rocket", which you objected to so
> > strenuously at the start of this tread.
>
> No, because there is a great deal of difference between the statements
>      "there were no reasons to expect that this would work"

I agree with Hyman on this one.  The phrasing is awkward and fails
to convey what I suspect is the original intent of the writer.  There are
no reasons why someone reading it would expect it to be correct.  A
slightly modified phrasing would eliminate the Usenet overflow that
seems to have occurred.   More careful design of the FAQ, though it
works perfectly well for the Ada-enthusiast audience for which it
was intended,  seems to raise an exception when read by others who
parse such statements differently, and whose intellectual trajectory
is a bit less vertical.

Richard Riehle