Re: Required Metrics

[Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com>]

In article <zw3Q4.5766$wb7.485167@news.flash.net>,
  "Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote:
> You *have* changed the rules to be more to your liking, if you
can
> *unilaterally* decide which rules affect portability (or any
other desirable
> aspect of standardization, such as the ability to reduce
training costs).
> For example, if a vendor decides that there's some required
aspect of ATC
> that no one is ever going to use, and it's not required to
pass the
> validation suite, then it sounds like that vendor is permitted
to not
> implement the feature. Certainly, no one could in good
conscience complain
> that this violates the standard, if they accept your argument.

That's a strawman. Obviously no one can sign the DOC if they
have deliberately failed to implement some aspect of the
standard, whether or not it is tested in the ACAATS tests

> In addition, if vendors alone are permitted to decide what
really _isn't_ in
> the standard, why can't vendors alone decide what's really
_in_ the
> standard? Why spend all this time fooling with ISO
standardization
> procedures if vendors have, in essence, a veto? Is it just for
the publicity
> value?

That's an absurd over-reaction to the thread at hand, not based
in any reality.

Remember this thread is all about a requirement that is clearly
semantically meaningless in formal terms (the RM does not even
describe what the word "documentation" means, and that's a
serious omission. Note that we could if we wanted perfectly
well declare that our sources are part of the documentation
and constitute the full compliance with the requirements
of annex M. That would meet the RM standards from a legal
point of view, but it would be useless to our customers.

I really think the documentation requirements of the standard
have almost no effect on compiler writers. Documentation is
written for the benefit of users. It is presumptious in any
case for the RM to think it can know what kinds of documentation
the user will require. Furthermore, if it requires documentation
without any indication of what the requirement means, then the
requirement is plain useless.

But Ken, extending this to clearly defined technical features,
where the requirements are meaningful and semantically sound
makes no sense at all. Bob Duff was quite clear in saying that
in THIS area, vendors follow the RM closely even if they don't
like what it says, and even if the tests do not test something.
His examples were well chosen ones. I do indeed think that ATC
was a huge mistake in the design of Ada, but Ada Core
Technologies has invested significant resources in making this
feature work completely and well, not just to pass the tests,
but to meet the requirements of our users.

Your concerns about vendors running amok would make more sense
if you would give us some nice examples of what it is that you
do not like :-)

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies



>
> > The ARG still exists, and still generates AI's.
> >
> > I suspect that if you sent in a question saying "Are the
metrics really
> > required?", the ARG would issue a ruling saying, "Yes, of
course, it
> > says so in plain English."  (I'm not sure of that; some
people might use
> > it as an opportunity to get rid of these silly rules.  Some
people might
> > take the attitude that you can't require something unless
you can
> > precisely define it -- and thus declare the metrics to be
meaningless
> > gibberish.)
>
> Per the standard, I just sent the mail message attached at the
end. We'll
> see what happens...
>
> > On the other hand, if you asked, "What, exactly, do the
metrics
> > require?", the ARG would refuse to waste time trying to
answer the
> > impossible.
> >
> > So, whatever compiler it was that said "Documentation not
yet
> > available", send them a bug report.  I wouldn't be surprised
if it's our
> > compiler.  ;-)
>
> If it's impossible to answer whether or not an implementation
meets the
> requirement, what's the bug? How would I know if it's fixed?
In particular,
> if _every_ vendor is doing this (and no one has said
otherwise), it sounds
> like something a bug report to a single vendor won't fix.
>
> -----
>
> From: Ken Garlington [mailto:Ken.Garlington@computer.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 7:23 PM
> To: ada-comment@sw-eng.falls-church.va.us
> Subject: Minimum criteria for metrics documentation
>
> !topic Minimum criteria for metrics documentation
> !reference RM95-D(2)
> !from Author Name 00-05-03
> !keywords metrics, documentation, real-time
> !discussion
>
> Is there any criteria that can be used to determine if a
vendor has formally
> met the requirements to document metrics described in D(2-6)?
For example,
> which (if any) of the following conditions would be considered
acceptable?
>
> 1. The vendor states that the metrics are not currently
available.
>
> 2. Same as #1, but vendor provides source code for its
implementation of
> interfaces to an underlying operating system.
>
> 3. Same as #2, but vendor explicitly states that source code
is provided to
> meet requirement.
>
> 4. Same as #3, but vendor provides a list of which source code
files are
> applicable.
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.