Re: ObjectAda - no clock drift!

[dennison@telepath.com]

In article <wccbtrrpwle.fsf@world.std.com>,
  Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote:
>
> dennison@telepath.com writes:
>
> > I guess I was mostly posting this to see if this is a just a farcical non-
> > compliance with the documentation standard, or if I'm misunderstanding the
> > standard.
>
> I think the Documentation Requirements in the RM shouldn't be there at
> all.  You can't legislate good documentation.  If you try, you get the
> sort of documentation you're complaining about -- totally useless
> information, intended purely to satisfy the letter of the law.

I'm beginning to agree with you. I only spotted this because it was so
outlandish. There seems to be lots of good information about the compiler in
this section, but now I can't trust *any* of it.

> Note that the validation process makes no attempt to verify that
> Documentation Requirements are met properly.  If the vendor had written,
> "Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall" as the answer to that question, they would
> still be just as validated.

I guess that explains why they answered 18 of the doc req's as "To be
determined".

Surely that means any day now they will have all those things determined and
will send me an addendum to the docs. I'll think I'll go check my mail for a
package from Aonix right now! :-)

T.E.D.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading