Re: Required Metrics

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>]

In article <CJoQ4.7913$wb7.555817@news.flash.net>,
  "Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote:
> So, why are some meaningless requirements addressed by the
> ARG, and others not?

Because the ARG regards it as a waste of time to spend any
time on the issue of obviously subjective requirements like
the documentation requirements. All it takes is one member
of the ARG to press to raise this issue, but no one has and
no one is likely to. Even those who supported the inclusion
of these requirements in the RM have no inclination to
revisit the matter. I personally agree it would be a waste
of time.

But if there is a requirement which on its face *appears* to
be well defined, but on careful technical analysis is not, then
that's a good point for the ARG to resolve.

In the particular case (Suppress ON) that I mentioned, this
came up during the attempt to semi-standardize the GNAT pragma
Unsuppress, and the question was what does UNsuppress/ON mean.
THe facile answer: the same as Suppress/ON. But Unsuppress has
far more potent semantics since it guarantees that a check will
not be performed, unlike the case with Suppress/ON which
guarantees nothing at all. So we really needed to be more
precise, and we discovered that we were building on shifting
sands here.



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