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, MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,66752102482bbdca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: Required Metrics Date: 2000/05/04 Message-ID: <8es60q$5fm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 619175705 References: <5DDO4.2237$wb7.194854@news.flash.net> <8ek4ea$5ta$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <390DC8AD.59B5EBEE@averstar.com> <8emkv7$uf6$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x33.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu May 04 15:46:40 2000 GMT X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 2000-05-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <8emkv7$uf6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ted Dennison wrote: > > Alternate phrasing of the question: If a requirement is in the > > standard, and no one makes an effort to follow it, what's the > > requirement doing in the standard? Why not have an interpretation that > > says, in essence: "Oops. Never mind"? Or am I just missing some > > fundamental point here? Well of course, this should be the point of view. And indeed properly following that point of view would have avoided all the meaningless documentation requirements in the RM. The ARG does in fact sometimes decide that things that look like requirements in the RM are meaningess. For instance we recently discovered that the Suppress (.., On=> ...) form of this pragma is completely meaningless, and the language in the standard is bogus -- compilers do different things, and what appears like a requirement is in fact in practice a statement that this feature is completely implementation dependent. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.