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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e61c8636ef35379d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-17 14:11:18 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!btnet-peer0!btnet!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news11-gui.server.ntli.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Sender: mjw@golux Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Examples in Docs, was Re: Escape Sequences in Strings References: <93objj$guk$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93q77h$rr6$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <940f9j$nj2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <940n0u$tnf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <942brr$b0t$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <942vqr$sd0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> From: Matthew Woodcraft Message-ID: <871yu16d9j.fsf@chiark.greenend.org.uk> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.6.45/XEmacs 21.1 - "Capitol Reef" Date: 17 Jan 2001 22:10:32 +0000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.253.132.90 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: news11-gui.server.ntli.net 979769400 62.253.132.90 (Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:10:00 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:10:00 GMT Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:4122 Date: 2001-01-17T22:10:32+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar writes: > In the case of a language definition, examples indeed convey > no information that cannot be derived from the definition > proper (unless the definition is incomplete). Yes, they may > be helpful in understanding, but they do not have any > non-derivable information. There's also the case where the definition is buggy. If examples were given normative force (saying 'this code is legal, and has such-and-such an effect'), they could change a consistent but undesirable definition to an inconsistent one. To continue the stretched analogies between language definitions and code, they could act as 'assertions'. I don't know how errata in the Ada standard are dealt with, but I can imagine a case where the language designers could be stuck with a meaning they didn't intend (making some construct effectively unusable, for example), but be unable to change it because the standard as published was consistent and unambiguous. An example of the construct as they had intended it to be used would prevent this occurring. -M-