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: 103376,446231e9f9fb9a1c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: john@assen.demon.co.uk (John McCabe) Subject: Re: ACVC tests Date: 1996/05/06 Message-ID: <831410275.2370.1@assen.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 153321087 x-nntp-posting-host: assen.demon.co.uk references: newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-05-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: >John McCabe said >"When I have some time, or when I can persuade my company to let me, I >will look at the ACVC tests, but the fact that I haven't so far must >not exclude me from expressing opinions on the effect of the tests, >based on the experience I have of using the products that have >(mysteriously) passed the tests!" >Ah, that's the point. You don't have this experience, since there are >no products that have passed the new ACVC 2.1 regression suite yet, >and so to make judgments based on this kind of anecdotal experience, >we at least have to get the right anecdotes. Don't be so pedantic - I was not only referring to the ACVC 2.1 suite. As someone who is currently mandated to use Ada 83, ACVC 2.1 is unlikely to have an effect on me until I can persuade the relevant people in my company that Ada 95 is the way to go. Until then, I _must_ also take into account ACVC 1.11 >I was not suggesting a thorough review of the tests, just take a look >at a couple of the new tests, I think you will be surprised by the >significant difference in style. I will - when I find time! Best Regards John McCabe