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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,28396555259c7864 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: JP Thornley Subject: Re: AQS95 floatin point relational tests Date: 1997/03/13 Message-ID: <49970788wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 225247958 References: <33241A3A.191B@lmco.com> <332691DA.59C6@lmco.com> X-Mail2News-User: jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-Path: relay-7.mail.demon.net!relay-5.mail.demon.net!diphi.demon.co.uk Organization: None Reply-To: jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-03-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article: <332691DA.59C6@lmco.com> William Dale Jr writes: > As I am currently writting an Ada 95 Standard based on the AQ&S95 > document I am interested in this issue and any others regarding this > document. ... > Anyone who can point me toward any other serious issues with the AQS > please jump in. > > I'm just coming to the end of this exercise (review draft sent for copying) and haven't come across any *major* problems other than the floating point issues mentioned in my previous post. One particular point that I think is wrong (but this is my personal opinion) is the recommendation (in the rationale of 5.9.6) that "Initialization at the point of declaration is safest as well as easiest for maintainers." [Hope that doesn't start that thread again.] One possible problem comes from turning Guidelines (many of which start "Consider using ..." or "Use caution when ...") into a standard. How big a problem this is depends on how readily you need to be able to show conformance. (The Ada 83 AQS had one guideline that said something like "know the Ada model for real arithmetic" - and conformance would presumeably have required the programmer to take a test :-) If you are keeping the examples in the AQS then they are rather poor at following their own guidelines on things such as naming, spacing, alignment etc. Also I have built up quite a number of minor comments on the AQS (typos and other such) that anyone keeping the bulk of the AQS text might be interested in (but it would be a very unpopular post to the newsgroup). BTW the contacts named in the Preface are no longer with the SPC. I have been annoying Rob Pettit (pettit@software.org) with my detailed comments. Phil Thornley -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | JP Thornley EMail jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk | ------------------------------------------------------------------------