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: 103376,30c7725dc9463cd5,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: lehman@ida.org (Dan Lehman)
Subject: Re: Ada95 to ANSI_C converter
Date: 1997/04/16
Message-ID: <5j1cm7$atn@news.ida.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 235088875
Organization: IDA, Alexandria, Virginia
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Re the Ada Issues / Commentaries classification "Pathological",
it bugs me each time it's mentioned, such as ...

> This category was invented in 1990.  Only three Ada 83 AI's were
> classified as pathological. ...

Indeed (which shows how important it is)!  And AI-00865 which spawned
the classification arose from a challenge to an ACVC test which most
of the expert reviewers deemed too quickly "pathological" but ultimately
one ARG reviewer made more convincing arguments that the test was plain
WRONG (as opposed to pathologically correct).  And the AI carries just
that argument, yet nevertheless waves the pathological flag.  The ACVC,
too, was summarily charged with having many "pathological" tests; but
there was never any particular citations of this affliction.

The more deserving AI to carry the classification was the old one
re accessing a task outside of its master (AI-167 (ooo, make that, now,
"AI83-00167" :-), which was classified as a Confirmation).  This was
ultimately reversed by AI83-00867, which is classified as a Pathology
--maybe the one good example of such.

> The ARG found it useful to have a category "pathological"

Well, not so terribly frequently "useful", Robert.

---Dan
------- *