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=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,c59f452174bd555 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,c59f452174bd555 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison) Subject: Re: Use of DBC as "executable SRS": scaling problems Date: 1997/08/01 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 261249900 Sender: news@syd.csa.com.au References: <870354811.9948@dejanews.com> Reply-To: donh@syd.csa.com.au X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dev50 Organization: CSC Australia, Sydney Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-08-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Mike Card wrote: :Finally, Don Harrison wrote: :>I wonder whether there has been some confusion here over the use of :>"specification" in different contexts. Eiffel people use the term :>in talking about assertions. Ada people tend to associate it with :>SRSes. : :Actually, "Ada people" usually use the term to refer to package :specifications or procedure/function/task specifications. That's a comfort to hear. :) :Those of us in the defense industry use it for formal SRSes, though, since :the US DoD usually requires a customer-approved SRS for any soft- :ware purchased with DoD dollars. Same deal here in Australia. Don. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Don Harrison donh@syd.csa.com.au