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=1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_WORDY, INVALID_MSGID 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: "Ken Garlington" Subject: Re: Required Metrics Date: 2000/05/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 619379708 References: <5DDO4.2237$wb7.194854@news.flash.net> <8ek4ea$5ta$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <390DC8AD.59B5EBEE@averstar.com> <8emkv7$uf6$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8es60q$5fm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Priority: 3 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 X-Complaints-To: abuse@flash.net X-Trace: news.flash.net 957487074 216.215.79.68 (Thu, 04 May 2000 19:37:54 CDT) Organization: FlashNet Communications, http://www.flash.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 19:37:54 CDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-05-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Robert Dewar" wrote in message news:8es60q$5fm$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > In article <8emkv7$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. So, why are some meaningless requirements addressed by the ARG, and others not? (By the way, I think I was the one to make the comment quoted at the top, not Ted Dennison, although by the end I may wish it had been someone else :)