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 <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Required Metrics
Date: 2000/05/04
Message-ID: <8es65n$5hn$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 619175772
References: <5DDO4.2237$wb7.194854@news.flash.net>
 <8ek4ea$5ta$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <BQnP4.3698$wb7.344147@news.flash.net>
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 15:49:19 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: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <BQnP4.3698$wb7.344147@news.flash.net>,
  "Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote:

> I'm not surprised, but I don't think it really answers my
question. The
> issue isn't, in my mind, "How easy is it for vendors to ignore
certain
> requirements?".  It's "Is there really a requirement?" (See my
response to
> Tucker's post for more...)


For a validated compiler -- difficult! In particular, how can
the DOC be signed if you have ignored a requirement.

Once again, the documentation requirements, the primary subject
of this thread, are in a rather special category, since these
are untestable, undefined requirements. Normally one would not
expect to find untestable, undefined stuff in a language
standard, and for the most part, one does not in the Ada RM,
but I am afraid there are exceptions :-)




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