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
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7dd9b82cd363f55b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Coding Standards
Date: 1996/05/15
Message-ID: <DrGtEE.EtF@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 155009836
references: <9605151401.AA04364@most>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-05-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <9605151401.AA04364@most>,
W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) <wwgrol@PSESERV3.FW.HAC.COM> wrote:
>Indeed, if you can't understand or maintain the code without the standard,
>then the coding standard is not making the code more maintainable, is it?

By the same argument, why should programmers have to read the Ada
manual?  After all, if you can't understand or maintain the code without
the Standard, then the language standard is not making the code more
readable.  For example, if you don't understand the type checking rules,
then type checking won't help you understand the program.  ;-)

I can assure you that if you work on a project where I'm the boss, and
it's written in Ada, you will be required to know Ada, and to know
project-wide conventions about Ada, and so on.

- Bob